AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (8) TMI 1568
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred denying the applicability of Tonnage Tax Provisions to Sundry credit balance written back of Rs. 14,23,705/- u/s. 41(1) of I.T. Act, 1961. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing excess provisions written back of Rs. 95,78,424 u/s. 41(1) of the I.T. Act. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in denying application to Tonnage Tax provisions on prior period income u/s. 41(1) of the I.T. Act. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in denying application of Tonnage Tax Provis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....,77,07,022 --- 3,77,07,022 --- 7. Profit on Bar + shop sales 4,82,654 ---- ----- 4,82,654 8. Refund Director's fees 12,03,547 ---- --- 12,03,547 9. Sundries 1,31,38,045 --- ---- 1,31,38,045 10. Application money-Right to Information Act 1,878 --- --- 1,878 Total 11,81,44,369 6,51,21,231 10,28,28,253 1,53,16,116 5. The Revenue is aggrieved by the relief granted by the Ld. CIT(A). 6. A perusal of the assessment order show that the impugned addition/disallowances made by the AO are based upon the findings given in earlier year's assessment order. The Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the impugned addition/dis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as income from core activity. In a going concern, such write backs and making of supplementary provisions takes place. The Assessing Officer as well as the Commissioner (Appeals) have treated the very same income which is taxable under section 41(1) differently. The first being expenditure claimed in pretonnage tax scheme assessment years and the second being expenditure claimed in post tonnage tax scheme assessment years. Such a segregation is not permissible under the Act. Both the incomes are incomes from core activity and just because tax rates different, they cannot be treated as non-business income. The Assessing Officer as well as the Commissioner (Appeals) seem to have been influenced by the fact that the assessee has an income of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t of managed vessels have been dealt by the Tribunal in ITA Nos. 2944 & 2945/M/2010 at para-22 of its order which read as under: Respectfully following the Tribunal's order dated 29th July, 2011 (supra) in assessee's own case for A.Y. 2007-08, we uphold the action of the authorities below in reducing the profit on sale of ships and fixed ships from the turnover of core shipping. The action of the authorities below in reducing the excess provision written back and sundry credit balances written back, however, is set aside and the A.O. is directed to include the said income in the turnover of core shipping. As regards item No. 3 (sundry receipts from core shipping) and item No. 6 (reimbursement from managed vessels), the ld. Counsel ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... been allowed as expenditure and therefore the refund of same should be treated as income directly relateable to the core activity of the operation of qualified ships. 10.2. Similarly, profits on Bar/shop sales are directly related to the incidental activity of the operation of the qualified ships. 10.3. After perusing the details on record, we find that commission on disbursements (receipts) of Rs. 4,27,948/- and Sundries amounting to Rs. 1,31,38,045/- have not been properly explained by supporting demonstrative evidences. We, therefore, restore these issues to the file of the AO. The assessee is directed to demonstrate its claim of receipts being directly related to the core activity/incidental activity by bringing cogent material e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... being claim by the assessee cannot be said to have been laid down or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of making or earning such income, we uphold the finding of the Revenue authorities in this regard. In our opinion, the Assessing Officer has rightly held that the assessee would not have incurred the expenditure claimed for earning income. The estimation of Rs. 1,00,000 by the Assessing Officer, in our opinion, is reasonable. Coming to reliance placed by the learned Sr. Counsel, on the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court Chinai And Co. Pvt. Ltd. The Shipping Corp. of (I) Ltd. ITA no.145/M./2011 21 (supra), we are of the opinion that these are factual matters and the same cannot be taken as a binding precedent. ....