2023 (10) TMI 443

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... disallowance of reimbursement of expenses to agent. 2. Deleting the addition of Rs. 50,12,45,795/- made on account of disallowance of claimed of expenses instead of deposits. 3. Directing the AO to allow claimed of Rs. 62,50,000/- made on account of write back of dividend income. 3. As could be seen from the ground no. 1, the dispute is in relation to disallowance of Rs. 81,50,93,579/- (wrongly mentioned as 81,93,579/-) representing reimbursement of expenses to agent. 4. Briefly the facts relating to this issue are, the assessee had claimed the aforesaid deduction on account of expenditure reimbursed to its agent, Sahara India Corporation. While completing the original assessment under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... While deciding the issue in appeal, learned first appellate authority having found that similar addition made in assessee's case in assessment years 1997-98 and 1998-99 has been deleted by learned Commissioner (Appeals), deleted the disallowance in the impugned assessment year, as well. 5. We have heard Sh. Ajay Vohra, learned Senior Advocate for the assessee and Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, learned Departmental Representative. From the materials on record, it is observed that while setting aside the order of learned Commissioner (Appeals) deleting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer, the Tribunal has specifically disapproved estimation of deduction at 3% and had further directed the Assessing Officer to verify the factual position....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mount of Rs. 50,12,45,795/- Contesting the disallowance, the assessee preferred an appeal before learned Commissioner (Appeals). Vide order dated 29.04.2000, learned Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the issue to the Assessing Officer with a direction to the assessee to provide the actual interest liability. Against the said decision of learned First Appellate Authority, Revenue went in appeal before the Tribunal. 9. During the pendency of Revenue's appeal before the Tribunal, the Assessing Officer while implementing the direction of learned first appellate authority passed a fresh assessment order on 26.02.2002 repeating the disallowance as was made in the original assessment order. Contesting the disallowance, the assessee again preferred....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sidered rival submissions and perused the materials on record. Briefly the facts are, since, the assessee was following mercantile system of accounting, it made a provision of Rs. 62,50,000/- on account of dividend receivable from 'Canpep - 92' in its accounts, based on the past history of the dividend declared by 'Canpep -92' and offered it to tax, however, no dividend was declared on 'Canpep -92' in financial year 1994-95 due to be received in financial year 1995-96. Since the amount was already offered as income in assessment year 1995-96, the Assessing Officer reversed the provision in assessment year 1996-97 and claimed it as deduction, as, actually no dividend on 'Canpep -92' was received. While completing the original assessment, the....