TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (5) TMI 50
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....: a) Rs. 5,24,639/- u/s. 14 r.w.r 8D b) Rs. 23,48,094/- under deferred revenue expenditure c) Rs. 6,09,193/- difference between income as ITR and income as per books 3. Ground no. 1 is relating to confirmation of addition of Rs. 5,24,639/- made u/s. 14 r.w.r 8D of the IT Rules. 4. On perusal of return, the AO found that the assessee made suo moto disallowance of Rs. 13,810/- for the purpose of computing expenditure u/s. 14A, which was not accepted by the AO. The AO u/s. 14A disallowed an amount of Rs. 5,25,639/- by invoking the provisions of section 14A r.w.r 8D(2) (i), (ii) & (iii) of the IT Rules and added the same to the total income of assessee by estimating as under: Disallowance u/s. 14A read with Rule 8D is as follow: (a)=Total interest x Average total investment/average total assets=(Rs.3002781 x Rs. 4342000) / Rs. 25924286 = Rs. 5,02,929 (b)=.5% of average investment = .5% x Rs. 4,342000 = Rs. 21,710 Disallowance u/s. 14A (a + b)= Rs. 5,24,639 5. Before the CIT-A it was contended by the assessee that he earned dividend income of Rs. 64,392/- and without recording any satisfaction regarding the accounts of assessee in respect of said suo moto disallowance. Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Act. Thus, ground no. 1 raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. 10. Ground nos.2 (a) & (b) are relating to confirmation of addition of shuttering expenses. 11. On perusal of schedule P of audited accounts of assessee, the AO found that the assessee claimed the following expenditure in his revised return of income:- (a) Site development & preliminary expenses Rs. 3,87,560/- (b) Steel shuttering materials 1/3 written off Rs. 9,46,440/- (c) Wood shuttering materials1/3 written off Rs. 14,01,654/- 12. The assessee explained by treating the said expenditure as deferred revenue expenditure in his accounts as the benefit of such expenditure is available to assessee for three years. The AO held that there is no provision of Income-tax Act, 1961 to allow such expenditure under the head 'deferred revenue expenditure' and added the same to the total income of assessee 13. Before the CIT-A, it was contended that the assessee inadvertently treated the said expenditure as deferred revenue expenditure, which was rectified by filing a revised computation at the time of assessment proceedings. The assessee further contended that there was no fresh claim for any othe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITA T was right in law in confirming order of the learned CIT(A) who deleted the addition of Rs. 50,000 made on account of scrap value of shuttering material disregarding the fact that these items had some scrap value?" 2. The Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction claimed on account of shuttering expenses. The CIT(A) deleted the additions and upheld the claim of the assessee by holding that the said expenses represented revenue expenses. The Tribunal affirmed the said view with the following observations :- "The expenditure in question had been incurred during the P.Y. and was revenue in nature. The fact that the material could be used in the subsequent assessment year is no ground to deny the claim for deduction. Consequently, ground No. 1 raised by the revenue is dismissed. ****** There is no material before the Assessing Officer to come to the conclusion that there was income of Rs. 50,000 on account of scrap value of shuttering materials. In fact the certificate of the engineering on which Assessing Officer placed reliance clearly states that the wooden shuttering material have no use after the life....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of M/s. Balmer Lawrie & Co Ltd. Thus merely became the assessee has disclosed higher receipts than those mentioned in the TDS return it would not lead to any conclusion of escapement of revenue without the AO bringing anything on record. The AO has accepted the books of account of the assessee and the ledger account of M/s. Balmer lawrie & Co. Ltd too. Further though the assessee credited TDS of Rs. 75,717/- from this party in the ledger account, the assessee in the return of income has only claimed TDS of Rs. 60,988/- as per the TDS certificates. The discrepancy in TDS, actual and debited, could be due to some communication error which is rectifiable and in this case it has no revenue impact. (b) M/s Bengal Chemical & Pharmaceuticals Ltd: In the ITR-TDS 2 Schedule. the assessee had declared receipts of Rs. 1,94,21,042/- from M/s. BCPL (as per TOS certificate) whereas the assessee had disclosed taxable receipts from the party only at Rs. 1 ,85,59,869/-. The assessee has explained this difference as under - As per TDS Schedule Rs.1,94,21,042/- Add: Amount wrongly included in the name in the name of Phangore Rajarhat Area Development Authority Rs. 27.75,730/- A....