TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (5) TMI 1589
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ort Ld. 'FAA') in Appeal No. 5/0217/2017-18 arising out of the appeal before it against the order dated 30.12.2017 passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act'), by the ACIT, Circle 14(2), New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. AO). The assessee has also filed Cross Objection to the grounds taken by the Revenue in its appeal. 2. Heard and perused the record. 3. At the time of hearing, it was pointed out by the ld. AR that in the appeal of the Revenue the tax effect is low. The ld. DR could not dispute the same. Accordingly, in the light of the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 dated 8th August, 2019 raising the monetary limit for filing of appeal by the Revenue before the Tribunal to Rs. 50 lakhs and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed. 6. In ground nos. 1 to 4, the appellant challenged the addition of Rs. 20,79,544/- out of employees benefit expenses. It has been stated that the business activity was carried out for only first quarter of the relevant financial year. It is also stated that gross amount of claim of salary etc. has actually been reduced from the immediately preceding year. Due to the reason that part of the salary has been capitalized towards glycerin plant in the last financial year, the figure for claim of employees benefit is shown less in the last financial year. 6.1 Contention of the appellant has been duly considered. It is a fact that the total employees benefit expenses claimed during the year of Rs. 67,51,639/- is slightly less....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., the appellant challenged the 50% disallowance out of total claim, amounting to Rs. 1,49,51,354/-, which was subsequently rectified and enhanced to Rs. 3,83,46,957/-. 7.1 This disallowance has been made due to the non-compliance and in absence of documentary evidence, the veracity of such expenses has not been established. 7.2 While sending the remand report, AO has gone through the additional evidences and clearly pointed out the defects / deficiency and absence of justification for certain expenditure as reproduced earlier. The appellant in its rejoinder have tried to justify the expenditure, as mentioned above. 7.3 With reference to 50% disallowances of purchases it is pointed out by the AO in his remand repor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s 40A(2)(b).Since the business is almost stopped there is no plausible reason for this interest cost is explained. Therefore, the purpose, justification and comparison with market rate has not been submitted to justify its claim, fully. However, looking to the expenditure incurred, it cannot be denied that part expenses are attributable to finance cost. Therefore, the disallowances is restricted to 50% and sustained accordingly. The balance amount is allowed. This will meet justice from both the ends. 7.7 With regard to the depreciation, it is stated by the appellant that audited schedule of fixed assets with depreciation charged during the year is already provided at the time of assessment and no separate details asked for hence, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) erred in sustaining the following adhoc disallowances made by the Assessing Officer i. Rs. 10,00,000/- on account of employees benefit expenses ; ii. Rs. 99,89,145/- on account of purchases; iii. Rs. 18,80,122/- on account of finance cost; iv. Rs. 17,16,656/- on account of other expenses ; v. Rs. 1,11,91,108/- on account of depreciation ; The order being arbitrary, fallacious, unlawful and untenable must be quashed with directions for relief." 6. On hearing both the sides, it comes up that the assessing officer had primarily made the additions on the basis that revenue from the operations had decreased significantly from preceding years. The assessee had admitted that manufacturing ....