TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (1) TMI 90
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on on behalf of the assessee inspite of several opportunities, we proceed to decide the appeal by hearing the ld. Departmental Representative (ld. DR for short) and on perusal of the available materials on record. 3. As the facts are identical in both these appeals, we pass a consolidated order for the same. 4. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under: 1. The CIT (A) erred in confirming the order of the A.O in disallowing a sum of Rs.13,94,716/- being Prior Period Expenditure (A. M.C) by considering the same as an expense pertaining to F. Y. 2012-13. 2. The CIT (A) erred in confirming the order of the A.O in erred in disallowing a sum of Rs.1,90,302/- being Property Tax for Dock Yard Godown on the gr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... opportunity of hearing before passing the Assessment Order. ITA No. 7115 /Mum/2019 5. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of creation, production and development of programs and other software media which can be broadcasted through the audio visual medium vide television. The assessee filed its return of income dated 30.09.2014, declaring total income of Rs.20,03,880/-. The assessee's case was selected for scrutiny and assessment order u/s. 143(3) dated 26.12.2016 was passed, determining total income of Rs.2,41,71,180/-, by making the several additions/disallowances. 6. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee was in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who confirmed the impugned addition. 7. A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... order of the ld. CIT(A). Thus, ground no. 1 raised by the assessee is dismissed. 9. Ground no. 2 pertaining to disallowance of Rs.1,90,302/- being Property Tax for Dock Yard Godown on the ground that the assessee has failed to prove the business utilization of the said Dock Yard Godown. The assessee has submitted that the said amount was paid to MCGM towards property tax for the period from 01.04.2013 to 31.03.2014 as the said godown was used for the purpose of stocking and occupied for the business purpose only. The assessee further submitted that the MCGM property was in the name of the previous owner and that the assessee was in the process of changing it to its name and due to seizer it could not be completed. The assessee has furni....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....evidences before the lower authorities nor before us to substantiate its claim of expenses paid towards property taxes. 11. From the above observation, we find no infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) and, therefore, ground no.2 raised by the assessee is dismissed. 12. Ground Nos. 3 and 4 pertains to the depreciation claimed on addition of new assets to Rs.37,61,496/- @ 15% flat and disallowing balance depreciation of Rs.1,22,31,226/- and depreciation on software restricted to 25% instead of 60%. It is observed that the assessee has made addition on fixed assets namely computer and software, furniture and plant and machinery, amounting to Rs.4,98,91,039/- and had claimed depreciation, amounting to Rs.3,35,21,991/-. The assessee dur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessee. As the assessee failed to substantiate that the said monitors were received during the assessment year in dispute, the ld. CIT(A) disallowed the claim of depreciation on the said monitors and added the same to the income of the assessee. Even before us, the assessee has failed to furnish the documents pertaining to its claim and in the absence of which, we find no infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) and we hereby uphold the order of the ld. CIT(A). Hence, ground nos. 3 & 4 raised by the assessee are dismissed. 14. Ground no. 5 is general in nature and requires no adjudication. 15. Ground no. 6 pertains to disallowance of the following expenses on the ground that the assessee has failed to substantiate its claim: ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... from the Export Import Summary Data CBSE by considering the same as an 'unrecorded expenditure' by inferring that there is no purchase as per the return of income filed by the assessee. The A.O. had made the impugned addition on the ground that the assessee was unable to furnish any explanation pertaining to the import transaction for the impugned amount, which was appearing in Export Import Summary Data CBSE. It is observed that the assessee has claimed the impugned amounts on account of capital assets by way of computers purchased during the year in the total expenditure of Rs.2,32,25,323/- in foreign currency as per the note in the impugned assessment year. The A.O. has disallowed the said expenditure in Note 26 foreign currency transac....