TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (4) TMI 807
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Ltd, filed its original return of income on 29.9.2009 for the A.Y 2009-10 declaring a total loss of Rs.(-)14,70,29,974/-. Thereafter, a revised return of income was filed on 13.2.2011 admitting the loss of Rs. 14,90,56,533/-. The return was initially processed u/s 143(1) and subsequently was taken up for scrutiny u/s 143(3) of the Act. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee company admitted gross receipts of Rs. 38.67 crores and claimed credit for TDS of Rs. 3,83,13,255/-. The Assessing Officer also observed from Form No.26AS that as per the TDS certificates, the gross receipts worked out at Rs. 46.51 crores and therefore, there was a difference of Rs. 7.84 crores in the turnover. When ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Rs. 8,04,15,678/- a) The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in affirming the addition made by the learned Assessing Officer (AO) on account of difference between gross receipts as per Form 26AS vis-a-vis turnover as per profit and loss account. b) The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the difference represents the reimbursement of expenditure recovered on cost to cost basis by the Appellant, and hence shall not form part of the turnover. c) The learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that recovery of expenditure on a cost to cost basis cannot partake the nature of income to be charged to tax. Notwithstanding and without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) ought to have appre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s and construction of tower by the Appellant does not tantamount to 'extension' of existing business as provided under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. d) The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the construction of towers was for the purpose of facilitating the ongoing business of the Appellant and there was no extension of existing business. e) The learned CIT(A) erred in not placing reliance on the judicial precedents quoted by the Appellant wherein the courts had held that interest paid on capital borrowed for acquiring business asset is an admissible expenditure under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. f) Notwithstanding the above, the learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the acquisition o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pitalized, this ground becomes academic. It is and accordingly rejected. 8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. ITA No.1098/Hyd/2018 A.Y 2011-12 9. Brief facts of the case for this A.Y are that the assessee company filed its return of income declaring total income at Rs. 35,11,950/- under the normal provisions of the I.T. Act and book profit of Rs. 2,91,64,033/-. Thereafter, it filed its revised return of income on 29.03.2013 declaring total income at loss of (-)Rs. 139,15,27,900/- and book profit declared at (-) Rs. 81,58,03,104/-. During the assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has debited an amount of Rs. 1,01,34,066/- towards....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....profit and loss account submitted by the Appellant which reflects that the advances and debit balances written off were debited to the profit and loss account thus satisfying the requirement of section 36(1)(vii) for claiming deduction thereunder. d) The learned CIT(A) ought to have placed reliance on Circular N0.12/2016 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes providing that claim for any debt or part thereof in any previous year shall be admissible under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act, if it is written off as irrecoverable in the books of accounts of the assessee for that previous year and on that basis should have allowed the claim of deduction of the Appellant in its entirety. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter....