AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (6) TMI 87
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....c. and also derives rental income. It filed its return of income on 30.09.2014, declaring loss of Rs. 4,06,236/- and book profits u/s 115JB of the Act for Rs. 11,81,114/-. 3. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee has declared rental income of Rs. 53,89,061/- and business receipt for Rs. 1,32,865/-. He noted that total purchases made by the company was Rs. 1,09,613/- from M/s USB Publishers Distributors Pvt. Ltd. (a company in which the director of the assessee is also the substantial share holder and director). The total sales of Rs. 1,32,865/- includes an amount of Rs. 10,653/- as miscellaneous cash sales and Rs. 1,22,211/- for sales to faculty of management, Mohan Lal Sukhadia Univer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lly considered the assessment order and the submission made by the AR on the above issue. The appellant company has claimed that it is engaged in the business of supply of books and net loss has been shown from the business at Rs. 41,44,219/ whereas the net income from house property has been shown at Rs. 37,37,983/-. The AO observed that the appellant has only one purchase bill amounting to Rs. 1,09,613/- and that too from its sister concern. Moreover, major sale has been made to only one party i.e., to Mohan Lai Sukhadia University amounting to Rs. 1,22,211/-. The appellant has shown rental income at Rs. 53,39,976/- and adjusted the business loss against it. 5.3. During the course of the appellate proceedings, the appellant argue....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ctivity. The aspect of commercial expediency plays its role only in such circumstances to determine whether the expenditure is allowable or not. I have already held in the preceding paragraph that the appellant had not carried out any business activity during the year under consideration. Hence, the question of commercial expediency does not arise. 5.5 As far as the contention of the AR, that both the appellant as well as the director, fall under the same tax bracket of 30%, is concerned, I do not agree with this aspect also. Both the persons are separate taxable persons and hence, this argument is not acceptable that disallowance in the hands of the appellant leads to double taxation. 5.6 I do not find any infirmity in th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the Assessing Officer is hereby confirmed and this ground of appeal of the appellant is dismissed." 6. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal:- 1. (a) That the learned CIT(A)has erred in sustaining the disallowance of business loss amounting to Rs. 41,44,219/- ,made by the learned Assessing Officer on the alleged contention that no business was carried on by the appellant since only one purchase has been made merely to show that a business activity has been carried out and major sale has been made to only one party. (b) That further in this connection, the learned CIT(A) has erred in concurring with the contention of the learn....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... order of the Tribunal in assessee's own case for AY 2012-13. We find that the assessee in the instant case, is engaged in the business of supply of books and is also deriving income from house property. It has shown loss from business at Rs. 41,44,219/- and the income from house property at Rs. 37,37,983/-. Since, the assessee has made purchases of Rs. 1,09,613/- and that too from its sister concern and since, the major sale has been made to only one party i.e. to Mohan Lal Sukhadia Univsersity amounting to Rs. 1,22,211/-, the Assessing Officer held that the intention of the assessee was only to set off the rental income against such business loss. He, therefore, disallowed the business loss claimed by the assessee against the rental incom....