Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2019 (9) TMI 852

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....to be engaged in the business of manufacturing of Batteries. Assessee electronically filed its return of income for A.Y. 2009-10 on 24.09.2010 declaring loss of Rs. 35,44,84,222/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and thereafter assessment was framed u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order 18.03.2013 and the total loss was determined at Rs. 32,61,62,800/-. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before Ld.CIT(A), who vide order dated26.02.2016 (in appeal No.PN/CIT(A)-5/Asst.CIT-7, Pune/153/2013- 14) granted substantial relief to the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), Revenue is now in appeal before us and has raised the following effective ground : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... knowing the volume of turnover. AO also noted that assessee had incurred expenses towards recruitment of new employees, travelling expenses, reimbursement etc. and it had paid separately for the services taken up by the TACO. AO therefore concluded that assessee had not received any administrative expenses from TACO during the assessment year and further concluded that assessee has not substantiated the services availed. He therefore held that in the absence of any justification for the amount paid, the claim of expenses paid to TACO at Rs. 2,83,21,427/- was not allowable u/s 40A(2)(b) of the Act and accordingly he disallowed Rs. 2,83,21,427/-. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before Ld.CIT(A) who noted that the fa....