TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (7) TMI 523
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iled its return of income 01. 11. 2004, declaring total income at Rs. Nil. The assessment order u/s. 143(3) of the Act, was passed on 29. 12. 2006, determining the total income of the assessee at Rs. 3. 71 crores under normal provisions and at Rs. 26. 50 crores u/s. 115JB of the Act. ITA. 3532/M/2009: 2. The solitary Ground of appeal, raised by the AO, is about deleting the interest levied u/s. 234 B and 234C of the Act. While completing the assessment the AO had levied interests under the said sections of the Act. 2. 1. During the appellate proceeding the First Appellate Authority (FAA)held that interest u/s. 234B and 234C cannot be levied when tax was to be computed u/s. 115JB of the Act. He referred to the case of Kwality Biscui....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng new evidence. The FAA referred to the provisions of section 36(1)(viii) and held that deduction could be allowed only if the debts had become bad, that the assessee had failed to furnish any evidence about the debts becoming bad. Finally, he upheld the order of the AO. 3. 2. Before us, the AR stated that the amount in question represented the provisions for 'writing back of bad debts' and not 'writing off of bad debts, that the deduction was claimed in computation of income, that the amount written back was included under miscellaneous expenses and was debited to P&L account. The DR stated that matter could be decided on merits. 3. 3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material before us. We find that the AO and th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e him it was argued that FE loss debited to P&L A/c. was due to difference of exchange rate at the time of issuing invoice and actual remittance received, that the FE loss was not on account of short recovery of export proceeds as held by the AO, that the AO had erroneously treated it as bad debts. After considering the submission of the assessee and the assessment order the FAA held that the AO had asked the assessee to submit details of FE loss, that no details were filed, that the assessee had submitted written reply during appellate proceedings, that no evidence was filed to substantiate the claim. Finally, he upheld the addition made by the AO. 4. 2. Before us, the AR contended that the assessee had submitted the note on foreign cur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... argued that incurred an amount of Rs. 9. 50 lakhs towards computer software expenses, that the amount did not represent loss on sale of assets as inadvertently submitted during the course of assessment proceedings, that the loss on sale of assets amounting to Rs. 65, 817/- had been shown separately in Schedule-11 forming part of P&L A/c. of the compilation for the year ended 31. 3. 2004, that the amount had been disallowed and added back to the total income in the computation of income for the year under appeal, that the amount in question represented software expenses. The FAA observed that the assessee had not filed any evidence to substantiate its claim , that it had submitted additional evidences in form of Schedule No. 12 and 13, that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ontended that the AO had failed to appreciate that those amounts were incurred as expenditure in earlier years and could not be disallowed during the year, that the disallowance in earlier years for sales tax and excise was made, that the deduction could be claimed only on payment basis under section 43B of the Act, that the AO had ignored the note in Annexure-5 to the tax audit report with regard to sales tax amounting to Rs. 46. 64 lakhs, that the dispute amount did not represent liability created during the year under appeal, that provision for excise on gum assets was not created during the year under consideration, that the customer stockist provision account represented the amounts to be paid back to stockists, that it was a normal in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed depreciation as claimed in return of income on the ground that the business for which the loss was originally computed had been discontinued. 7. 1. Before the FAA the assessee argued that the provisions for carry forward, set off of business losses were governed by section 72 and not by section 71(1)(i), that the proviso in connection with the continuance of business had been omitted by the Finance Act, 1999 w. e. f. 1. 4. 2000. After considering the submission of the assessee the FAA held that as per the proviso of Section 72 the unabsorbed losses that were discontinued could be set off against the profit and gains, if any, of that business, that the assessee had no business income for the year, that the AO had rightly disallowed the....