Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2012 (2) TMI 539

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e to delayed delivery and late compliance of the order, certain parties imposed damages as penalty on the assessee. When the matter was carried before the 1st appellate authority, he has placed reliance on the order of the tribunal in the assessee's own case passed for the assessment year 1997-98 and few orders of Ld. CIT(A) for the assessment year 2000-01 to 2004-05. 4. With this brief factual background, we have been informed that on identical facts, ITAT 'A' bench in the assessee's own case for the assessment year 2004-05 bearing I.T.A.No. 85/Ahd/2008, order dated 21.05.2010, has followed an earlier order in the assessee's own case for the assessment year 1997-98 bearing I.T.A.No. 612/Ahd/2001 and thereafter, dismissed the ground of the revenue. Since the factual as well as legal position is identical, therefore, for the year under consideration as well, following the past history, as indicated above, we hereby dismiss this ground of the revenue. 5. Ground No.2 reads as under:- "2. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 37,65,575/- made by the A.O. on account of debit balance written off." 6. The assessee has written of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....bmitted a reconciliation for the stock difference which is the repetition of what was submitted before the A.O. It is the contention of the A R that the appellant finalized the bank statement earlier to the closing date of 31.3.2005 and the stock submitted to the bank was an un-audited figure where as the stock reflected in the balance sheet was an audited figure. The adjustment in stock statement was decided jointly by the Director, Financial Controller, Account manager and other officers of the company, so this I was decided subsequent to 31.3.2005. It was also pleaded that normally the assessees declare I higher stock figure to the bank so that their cash credit limit would be more and normally bank I does not ask for audited figure of stock so there is bound to be difference between the audited ; figure and unaudited figure. The A.R. has cited various decisions and it has been pleaded that without any evidence that the claim of the appellant was not correct, no addition could have been made as unexplained investment. It is also a general fact that goods are dispatched in the last week of March including the last date of the financial year and the last dispatches have not been r....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eakup of the expenditure was as under: "(a) Traveling expenses 68706/- (b) Fees 978062/- (c) Boarding & Lodging 793290/- (d) Miscellaneous 5935/-   Total 1845993/- 13. The A.O. has found that Ms. S S Modi is the daughter of one of the Directors. According to the A.O., the expenditure was in the nature of providing benefit to a relative for the purpose of personal gain and not for the purposes of business. The A.O. has placed reliance on the following decisions: i) CIT Vs Hindustan Hosiery Industries 209 ITR 383 (Bom.) ii) M. Subramaniam Bros. Vs CIT 250 ITR 769 (Mad.) iii) CIT Vs R.K.K.R. Steels (P) Ltd., 258 ITR 306 (Mad.) iv) Mac Explotec (P) Ltd. Vs CIT 286 ITR 378 (Kar.) 14. When the matter was carried before Ld. CIT(A), he has given his finding as follows: "I have considered the submission of the A.R. carefully. It is found that Ms. S. S. Modi, daughter of Director was already an employee of the appellant company prior to the foreign training and she was qualified on Human Resource Development from University of New South Wales, Australia at the time of joining the company and ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ny on her studies in London including return air fare along with interest of 12% from the date of payment. 4. Ms. SM further agrees that she will be in service of the company for at least six years as HR in charge and other responsibilities, if any, given to her by the company. 5. Ms. SM agrees that in due eventuality that she leaves the job during i.e. six years assured by her to the company, she will be liable to pay to the company in the proportion of the amounts spent and unfinished/ portion of the tenure with the company." 16. Apart from this service agreement, the Ld. A.R. has vehemently pleaded that Ms. S. S. Modi has already obtained a degree in Human Resources and Development from the University of New South Wales, Australia. Thereafter, she has obtained an appointment with the assessee company and at that time, when she was sent abroad for higher education, she was an employee of the assessee company. The Ld. A.R. has also informed that the total income as per the return was to the extent of Rs. 3,98,64,134/- and considering the high volume of turnover and the strength of the employees of the company, it was taken a business decision to s end her for ....