AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (1) TMI 893
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ioner of Income Tax-10 [CIT], Mumbai whereas ITA No. 3550/Mum/2012 contest the quantum additions in consequential order as confirmed by first appellate authority. Since the assessee has challenged the issue of jurisdiction u/s 263, we take up the same first. ITA 4288/Mum/2011 2.1 Facts, in brief, are that the assessee being resident corporate assessee engaged in the business of manufacturing, installation and sale of medical equipments was assessed for impugned AY on 12/12/2008 u/s 143(3) at Rs. 41.90 Lacs which was same as returned income. Subsequently, Ld. CIT, vide order dated 28/03/2011 invoking revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 directed Ld. AO to frame fresh assessment after considering certain points as noted by Ld. CIT in the impugn....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... fact that the revenue has no recourse against the shortcomings / omissions / errors made by Ld. AO except invoking revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 and therefore, the same was rightly invoked. 2.3 We have carefully heard the rival contentions and perused relevant material on record. At this stage, we are not concerned with the merits of the case but limited to the issue that whether twin conditions viz. erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue as envisaged by the provisions of Section 263 are, prima facie, fulfilled or not. The perusal of the quantum order reveals that Ld. AO has nowhere discussed the allowability / admissibility of the above six items as enumerated by Ld. CIT in the show-cause notice. The Ld. CIT, after pe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g us through various documents placed in the paper-book contested the additions whereas Ld. DR defended the stand of lower authorities. 4.1 We have carefully heard the rival contentions and perused the relevant material on record. At the outset, it is noted that Share issue Expenses of Rs. 1,95,120/- incurred by the assessee are capital in nature being incurred to expand the capital base of the company and hence, disallowable. Therefore, additions to that extent stand confirmed. Similarly, the Ld. AR contended that Sales Tax Penal charges of Rs. 80,740/- as claimed by the assessee do not represent any penalty payment but only the additional sales tax liability of earlier years. Since Ld. AR could not produce any documentary evidence to pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ordingly, commission income received against the same is accrued over the period of warranty by following the matching concept of income. Our attention is drawn to the financial accounts of the company and detailed workings thereof as made by the assessee. The Ld.AR further contended that the assessee is consistently following the same method of accounting over the past several years and the same has also been accepted by the revenue. Our attention is further drawn to a vital fact that the assessee, following the same method of accounting, has already offered the said income in subsequent assessment years and hence, double taxation of the same amount was against the principle of natural justice and hence, not permissible. 4.4 Upon perusal,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....alary expenses incurred by the assessee. The Ld. AR contended that the same was arrived at on the basis of report of actuarial valuation and therefore, allowable in terms of ratio of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bharat Earth Movers Vs. CIT [245 ITR 428]. 4.6 It is settled proposition that deduction could be allowed to assessee only against ascertained liabilities and not mere provision. The Ld. AR could not demonstrate the working of arriving at the said provision. It is also noted that the assessee did not produce any evidence in this regard before any of the lower authorities and the documents being presented before us in the form of actuarial valuation report constitute additional evidences. Hence, without delving much deeper in....