TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (11) TMI 1852
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 26.00 crores made by the AO by disallowing the payment of privilege fees without appreciating the fact that said payment was application of income or appropriation of profit and also the fact that these expenses are a capital nature. ii) Deleting the addition on account of prior period expenses though the accounting policies of the assessee company does not allow the same. iii) Deleting addition of Rs. 17,80,765/- made on account of depositing the PF/ESI payment the prescribed time despite the fact that as per section 36(1)(va) employees contribution should have been deposited in time as prescribed in the relevant law. Section 43B permits delayed payment if paid before filing of ROI as per section 139(1) in case of employer's contr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ounsel for the assessee contends that the ground of revenue pertaining to payment of privilege fees amounting to Rs. 26.00 crores has been allowed as business expenditure by the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in assessee's own case for A. Ys. 2006-07, 07-08 and 08-09. The relevant finding of the Tribunal for A.Y. 2007-08 vide its order dated 21.10.2011 in ITA No. 540/JP/2011 is reproduced as under:- "14. The ld. CIT (A) after considering the above observation deleted the addition after observing as under:- In the present case, the appellant company was granted exclusive privilege for wholesale trade of Indian Made Foreign Liquor & Beer in the State of Rajasthan for the financial year 2006-07 under the provisions of the Rajasthan E....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is not allowable for the year under consideration since the assessee is following mercantile system of accounting. During the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant submitted that in respect of prior period items shown in the Profit & Loss account, it is the position of the assessee that if the net result of prior period items is positive, the same is duly offered as income in the respective years and if the net result is in negative, the same has been claimed in the respective years and the said policy has been consistently followed by the appellant over the years. Further, it is noted that while allowing relief to the assessee, the ld. CIT (A) has also taken into consideration the supporting documents which have been filed by the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....5-06 to 2007-08 and which have been written off in the books of account of the appellant. As per the AO, the same were not allowable to the appellant as the assessee did not prove business expediency/business connection for giving the said advances. 6.1. During the appellate proceedings before the ld. CIT (A), the assessee submitted that the assessee has given the advances to suppliers for business purposes only but liquor was not received. The ld. CIT (A) followed the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in T.R.F. Ltd. v. CIT, (2010) 323 ITR 397 wherein it has been held that if the bad debt is written off as not recoverable in the accounts of the assessee, it has to be allowed. In the instant case it is not in dispute that this debit balanc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lete the disallowance of Rs. 9,09,692/- which was not claimed by the appellant at first place. Hence the question of disallowance does not arise. Similarly, regarding the disallowance of Rs. 8,93,611/- towards surcharge on excise duty, the submission of the appellant is that the same represents the closing provision as on 31.3.2009 and during the year, no amount was charged to the Profit & Loss account. In the light of above, the disallowance of Rs. 8,93,611/- is also deleted in the hands of the appellant. Hence, the ground no. 1 of assessee is allowed. 8. Regarding the second ground of appeal, the assessee has submitted that the ld. CIT (A) has erred in upholding the disallowance made by the AO of un-reconciled bank balance amounting to R....