TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (4) TMI 960
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he fact and circumstances of the case and in law, the disallowance is unwarranted and the same ought to be deleted. Without prejudice to the above your appellants submits that the disallowance of Rs. 20,12,208/- is excessive and ought to be reduced substantially. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the disallowance u/s. 36(1)(va) amounting to Rs. 3,64,975/-. Your appellants submit that in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the disallowance is unwarranted and the same ought to be deleted. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition made by the AO of Rs. 56,94,748/- being sundry balances written off. Your appellants submit that in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the addition is unwarranted and the same ought to be deleted. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the disallowance made by the AO of Rs. 1,76,70,049/- being loss on account of write off of receivables. Your appellants submit that in the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the disallowance is unwarranted and the same ought to be allowed either as bad debt u/s.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ufficient funds available for investments and also argued that these funds were temporarily held in MF for business considerations where the total investments were to the tune of Rs, 45,38,51,492/- as on 31.3.2008 and Rs. 13,10,21,919/- on the corresponding date in the preceding previous year. The borrowed funds Rs. 88,43,158/- were taken for specific purpose and used accordingly. Therefore the interest disallowance of Rs. 5,50,586/- be deleted. In respect of remaining amount of Rs. 14,61,622/-, the ld counsel submitted that in the schedule M pertaining to Administrative and Selling Expenses which were Rs. 14,91,12,604/- and personnel cost in schedule no L of Rs. 12,47,94,407/- which were incurred for the purpose of business of the assessee as the assessee was still carrying on the business of project cargo. The ld counsel brought to our notice the three expenses namely Rent, rates and taxes Rs. 4,54,46,772/-, Legal and professional charges Rs. 1,94,25,756/- and Amount written off Rs. 1,76,70,049/- totaling to Rs. 8,25,42,577/- which were not having indirect nexus with dividend income. The ld Counsel ultimately prayed that the additions of Rs. 20,12,208/- be deleted. Per contra ld.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0,000/- out of Rs. 14,61,622/-. Thus the assessee gets relief of Rs. 13,50,586 in all out of Rs, 20,12,208/- thereby sustaining the addition of Rs. 6,61,622/-. 4.4 The ground no. 1 is partly allowed. 5. The second ground is against the confirmation of additions of Rs. 3,64,975/- in respect of late payment of PF. The AO disallowed the PF for late payment beyond the grace period on the basis of tax audit report by rejecting the contention of the assessee the issue was not covered by the provisions of section 43B of the Act but covered by section 2(24)(x) r.w.s 36(1)(va) of the Act. The assessee submitted that the provident fund was paid before the due date of filing the return of income and was admissible. The ld CIT(A) also upheld the additions on the ground that the PF should have been paid within due date as extended by grace period and not beyond under the relevant Act governing the provident fund scheme and not u/s 43B of the Act. 5.1. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials on records. We find from the records and arguments of the counsels that the assessee had paid the PF beyond the grace period after the due date under the relevant Act but well before....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re claim of write off of Rs. 56,94,748/- was not sustainable. The AO rejected contention of the assessee that two warehouses were not transferred to the buyer and were surrendered to the licensor vide termination deed dated 30.11.2010 . 6.2. The CIT(A) also upheld the additions of Rs. 56,94,748/- on the ground that the assessee failed to rebut the observations and findings of the AO. The CIT(A) further held that since the assessee had sold all the assets pertaining to general cargo division and therefore any claim made by the assessee as such u/s 37(1) could not be wholly and exclusively for the business and once the lease in respect of the three warehouses were transferred to the purchaser, the entire deposits and rent for the unexpired period also stands transferred in slump sale to purchaser and therefore the claim of the assessee was wrong and rightly disallowed by the AO. 6.3. The ld AR submitted before us that both the AO as well as the CIT(A) did not appreciate the reply filed by the assessee vide letter dated 30.11.2010 clarifying the positions qua the transfer of warehouses to the purchaser and warehouses for which the lease and license agreements were terminated. The as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g the addition to the extent of Rs. 11,78,748/- . 6.6 Ground no 3 is partly allowed. 7. The issue in the 4th ground of appeal is against the confirmation of addition of Rs. 1,76,70,049/- being loss on account of write off of receivables upon re-assignment in the slump sale of the general cargo division. The facts in brief are that the assessee sold its general cargo division vide agreement dated 04.04.2007 w.e.f. 01.05.2007. Thus during the year the activity of general cargo division was carried on for one month and revenues and expenses were duly shown in the profit and loss account and the net profit from the said division for one month was Rs. 72,30,254 . The purchase price of the general cargo division was to be worked out and determined in terms of clause 3 of the sale agreement dated 04.04.2007 on the basis of estimated working capital and estimated net debts subject to adjustments as defined under the head "Adjustments to Purchase Price" in the definition clause and if any adjustment was required in terms of the above clause, the purchaser had the option to re-assign to the appellant any part of the assets forming part of the net current assets. The purchaser as per the sa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... submitted before us that the business of the assessee continued with project cargo section whereas the general cargo section was parted with w.e.f. 01.05.2007 and the income and expenses till 30.04.2007 were duly shown in the books of the assessee and so was the net profits of Rs. 72,30,254/-.The AO as well CIT(A) observation was wrong and unfounded for the reasons that by allowing the write off of Rs. 1,76,70,049/-, the assessee would be getting double benefit. The purchaser had reduced the said amount from the consideration paid to the assessee and therefore whatever was given back under the "Adjustments to Purchase Price" clause had to be written off as the same was not part of the slump sale. Finally the Ld AR prayed for reversing the order of lower authorities on this point and allowing the claim of the assessee by relying on decisions in the case of Veecumsees Vs CIT(SC) 220 ITR 185 & CIT Vs Rajni Investments Pvt. Ltd (Mad) 319 ITR 435. 7.4 The ld DR per contra relied on the orders of the authorities below. 7.5. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the materials on records. During the year the assessee sold its general cargo division vide agreement dated 04....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(A) erred in deleting the addition u/s. 40(a)(ia) in connection with leased line charges to VSNL following ITAT Mumbai judgement in the case of Kotak Securities Ltd. Reported in 25 SOT 440 ignoring the fact that the fact that the same judgement has been reversed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court vide its order dated 25.10.2011 in ITA/3111/2009. 3. For these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing, the decision of the CIT(A) may be set aside and that of the AO restored." 11.1 At the outset the ld. AR of the assessee pointed out that the tax effect in this appeal is below Rs. 10.00 lakhs and further submitted that in view of the CBDT Circular No.21/2015, dated 10.12.2015 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, the appeal is not maintainable and be dismissed. The ld. DR also agreed to the submission of the ld. AR. 11.2 We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We find from the records available before us that the tax involved in the disputed issue is below Rs. 10 Lacs and therefore, in view of the Circular issued by CBDT bearing No.21/2015 dated 10.12.2015 presc....