TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (4) TMI 1018
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on High Court and that of the Apex court on the issue. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has not appreciated the fact that the collection towards an Association towards maintenance of the Appellant's tenant is not the income of the Appellant. The same is reflected as a liability in the books of the Company. Mere tax deduction will not constitute an income. 3. The commissioner of Income tax had failed to notice that there are apparent mistakes in the calculation made by the Assessing officer in the addition made to book profits u/s115JB. The disallowances u/s 14A read with Rule with 8D are not to be applied while determining the book profits u/s 115JB. 4. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was inconsistent while making the addition u/s 14A at Rs. 4,84,571/- while computing the book profits, and restricted the same to Rs. 71,705/- in the normal computation. 5. For these and other reasons that maybe adduced at the time of hearing, it is prayed that the order of the learned commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) may be set aside. 3. The first issue that came up for our consideration from ground Nos. 1 to 3 of assessee appeal is addition of Rs. 9,76,447/- made....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er reported income received from M/s. Shell India Markets Pvt. Ltd., and hence it cannot be said that books of account of the assessee are prepared in accordance with Part II and II of Schedule - VI to the Companies Act. Therefore, we are of the considered view that there is no error in the reason given by AO to re-compute book profit by making addition towards income not reported in books of accounts of the assessee. 3.3 As regards case law relied upon by the assessee, in the case of Apollo Tyres vs. CIT, the same is not applicable because in that case, the books of accounts of assessee are prepared in accordance with Part II and III of Schedule VI to the Companies Act and under those facts, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that once books of accounts are in accordance with Companies Act and approved by the Board, then the AO has no jurisdiction to go behind net profit shown in profit and loss account except to extent provided in Explanation to section 115J of the Act. Hence, we reject arguments of the assessee and confirm addition made by the AO towards income not reported in books to book profit computed u/s.115JB of the Act. 4. The next issue that came up for our consideration ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... shifting expenses is against the facts of the case. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax should have been guided by the decision of the Jurisdiction High Court on the issue. 2 The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has not appreciated the fact that The Assessing Officer had made an addition of Rs. 1,50,000 by treating the amount directly credited by one the Directors by cash in the current account of the appellant" The explanation that the Director was an assessee in the same jurisdiction and the books of accounts of the Director filed with the Assessing Officer reflected the entry was not considered by the Commissioner of Income Tax. 3. The Commissioner of Income tax had failed to notice that there are apparent mistakes in the calculation made by the Assessing officer in the addition made to book profits u/s 115JB. The disallowances u/s 14A read with Rule with 8D are not to be applied while determining the book profits u/s 1l5JB. 4. For these and other reasons that maybe adduced at the time of hearing, it is prayed that the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) may be set aside. 7. The first issue that came up for our consideration from Ground No.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ations were made to reject arguments of the assessee that the creditor is having creditworthiness to provide loan. Therefore, we are of considered view that once identity of creditor is proved and genuineness of transaction is established then merely for the reason that loan is received in cash no addition can be made u/s.68 of the Act. Once initial burden was discharged then burden shifts to the Revenue to prove otherwise as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Orissa Corp. P. Ltd., 159 ITR 78. In this case, assessee has filed all possible evidences to prove loan but the AO has disregarded evidences filed by the assessee and made addition only on the ground of receipt of loan by cash. Therefore, we are of considered view that the AO is erred in making addition towards unsecured loan received from Shri R. Muthaiyah amounting to Rs. 1,50,000/-. Hence, we direct the AO to delete addition made u/s.68 of the Act. 9. The next issue that came up for our consideration from Ground No.3 of assessee appeal is addition towards disallowance u/s.14A r.w.rule 8D to book profit computed u/s.115JB of the Act. 9.1 We find that an identical issue had been considered by us in as....