TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (2) TMI 786
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ows:- "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition made on account of delayed payment of contribution to PF amounting to Rs. 8,96,190/- despite such deduction being contrary to the provisions of section 36(1)(va) of the Act. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 7,44,598/- out of Misc. expenses, on the basis of unsubstantiated claim of assessee. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of expenditure on commission of Rs. 55,62,090/-, on the basis of unsubstantiated claim of assessee and against the reasons given by AO. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of expenditure as legal and professional charges of Rs. 2,79,418/- despite reasons on record on support of the disallowance made by AO. 5. On the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the Ld. CITA) has erred in law and on facts in de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....owed. 6. Ground No.2:- Deletion of miscellaneous expenses of Rs. 7,44,598/-. Since the assessee company was a sick company during that period, it could not produce the details of miscellaneous expenses. Therefore, the Assessing Officer made disallowance of 1/4th of the expenses for want of verification. Whereas, the Ld.CIT(A) appreciated the circumstances of the assessee case and held that the adhoc disallowance made by the Ld AO without pointing out specific items which were not verifiable is unjustified and therefore, deleted the addition. 7. Before us, the Ld.CIT-DR could not justify the deletion made by the Ld.CIT(A) and therefore, this ground raised by the Revenue is devoid of merit and, therefore, the same is dismissed. 8. Ground No.3: Disallowance of commission expenses of Rs. 55,62,090/-. The Assessing Officer disallowed the commission on sales amounting to Rs. 55,62,090/- from total commission amount of Rs. 80,13,975/- stating that the assessee-company did not provide any information on what basis commission was paid and also questioned whether TDS was deducted and also the commission expenses increased during this assessment year comparing with the earlier assess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s from Kolkata to Ahmedabad and closure of old plant, which was sustaining losses and the circumstances where there is no likelihood of cost effective recovery of debts and following the judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s. TRF Ltd. vs. CIT reported at 190 Taxman 391 (SC). 10.1. We do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A), since Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of TRF Ltd. held that it is not necessary for the assessee to establish that debt, in fact, has become irrecoverable, it is never if bad debt is written off as irrecoverable in accounts of the assessee. Respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the above ground raised by the Revenue is devoid of merit and the same is hereby dismissed. 11. Ground No. 6: Cost of acquisition of land at Rs. 1,17,40,000/- instead of Rs. 25 lakhs. The Assessing Officer while calculating the capital gain has not accepted the fair market value of the land as on 01/04/1981 as Rs. 1.25 crores as claimed by the assessee, on the ground that no valuation report from Govt. Approved Valuer was submitted by the assessee. However, the Ld AO determined the cost of the land as on 01/04/198....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....his ground raised by the Revenue is hereby dismissed. 15. Ground No.2: The CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to recalculate the capital gain on sale of land taking total value of property of Rs. 6.05 Crs. after deducting value of Rs. 1.75 Crs. towards Building, Plant & Machinery. Originally, the assessee sold the property for Rs. 5 crores, wherein the value of the building, plant & machinery claimed by the assessee as Rs. 1.75 crores. This bifurcation pertains to land, building, plant & machinery was accepted by the AO while passing the assessment order u/s. 143(3) dated 29-12-2006. Pursuant to the Revision order passed by the Ld.CIT u/s. 263 of the Act, directed the AO to value the property as per section 50C of the Act. In compliance, the AO determined the valuation of the land at Rs. 6,05,00,000/-. Though the assessee has not disputed the application of section 50C valuation, but claimed the value of building, plant & machinery of Rs. 1.75 crores is to be deducted while computing on the value of Rs. 6.05 crores. 15.1. The Ld.CIT(A) accepted the contention of the assessee and held that the subject matter of sale consideration for the purpose of capital gain u/s. 50C of the A....