TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (5) TMI 1087
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1,03,912 made under sec. 14A of the Act. 2. Heard and considered the arguments advanced by the parties in view of orders of the authorities below, material available on record and the decisions relied upon. 3. Ground No.1: In support of this ground, the Learned Senior DR has basically placed reliance on the assessment order. He submitted that the assessee company is engaged in the manufacturing and sale of automotive dash board instruments. During the year, it had made exports to its clients at UK as well. The Assessing Officer observed that even though the assessee has effected total sales of Rs. 65,52,52,124 after reducing an amount of Rs. 95,62,736 as sales return, it booked only an amount of Rs. 64,56,89,380 in the profit and loss....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ances when such a claim was made in earlier years also, where goods that were rejected were not physically received back by the assessee. In respect of amount of Rs. 6,29,778, the Learned AR submitted that this amount was in the nature of credit given to the customers as freight charges and was distinct in nature. Details of which were furnished before the Learned CIT(Appeals) showing that this amount was aggregation of various small sums of varied nature. 5. Having gone through the orders of the authorities below, we find that the Assessing Officer had made addition in question on the basis that details of such sales return were not available in the RGI registers as maintained under the Central Excise Duty Act. The explanation of the as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....count of depreciation on the basis that the assets purchased in March 2009 were not put to use. Without appreciating this material aspect, the Learned CIT(Appeals) was not justified in deleting the disallowance in question. 7. The Learned AR on the other hand placed reliance on the first appellate order on the issue. 8. Considering the above submissions, we find that the claimed depreciation of the assessee was based upon its submission that it had not only installed but had also put to use the assets purchased in March 2009, which were considered as not having been used by the Assessing Officer while making the disallowance in question. The Learned CIT(Appeals) has, however, deleted the disallowance as the claim of user of the assets....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iance on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. holding that Assessing Officer had to first give a finding as to the fact that he is not satisfied with the correctness of amount of expenditure incurred for earning exempt income. 11. Having gone through the orders of the authorities below, we find that in its return of income, the assessee itself had disallowed an amount of Rs. 1,59,410 towards the expenses incurred for earning the dividend income. The Assessing Officer, however, was of the view that the assessee has not made disallowance in a reasonable manner to ascertain the true and correct picture of its income. Accordingly, he invoked the provisions of sec. 14A and made disallowance of Rs.....