TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 1232
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to the A.Y. 2021-22 in the proceedings under Section 143(3) of the Act. 2. The cross objection filed by the assessee is delayed by 2 days. The assessee has filed a condonation application explaining the reason for delay. It is explained that the delay was due to time taken in obtaining professional advice on the legality and the complexity of the issue involved. Considering the explanation of the assessee the delay in filing the cross objection is condoned. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed its return of income for A.Y. 2021-22 declaring income of Rs. 13,76,71,580/-. The case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS. In the course of assessment various additions were made by the Assessing Officer and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of primary documentary evidence. Further, TDS Deduction alone does not establish the genuineness of transactions. (c) The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 4,61,195/- made by AO on disallowance of loan processing fees despite the fact that: (i) It is contrary to Accounting Standard- 16 (AS-16), which mandates the capitalization of expenses incurred for acquiring a capital asset. (ii) the assessee failed to furnish details to demonstrate that the expenditure was incurred for working capital purposes rather than capital acquisition. (d) The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 37,31,239/- made by AO on disallowance of expenses u/s 57 d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....allowance as made by the Assessing Officer. 8. Per contra, Shri Keyur Bavishi, Ld. AR of the assessee explained that the details of the expenditure were duly filed before the Ld. CIT(A) in the course of appellate proceedings. Further, the Ld. CIT(A) had called for a remand report from the Assessing Officer on this issue and thereafter, considering the report of the Assessing Officer, the Ld. CIT(A) had rightly deleted the addition. 9. We have considered the rival submission. The contingent liability of Rs. 1,50,81,767/- was added for the reason that no detail in this respect was filed before the Assessing Officer. However, the assessee had furnished party-wise details of these expenses in the course of appeal proceedings. It is found ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ies to which the purchase of Rs. 4,57,73,285/- pertained was filed before the Ld. CIT(A). Further that Ld. CIT(A) had called for a remand report from the Assessing Officer on this issue and on the basis of the remand report the addition was deleted. 12. We have considered the rival submissions. The purchase of Rs. 4,57,73,285/- was disallowed by the Assessing Officer for the reason that the concerned parties did not respond to the notice under Section 133(6) of the Act issued by the Assessing Officer and did not confirm the transaction. However, the assessee had filed a copy of the ledger account and balance confirmation of the parties in the course of appellate proceedings. The matter was referred to the Assessing Officer and in the rem....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e loan processing fee had to be capitalized. Therefore, no general stand could be taken that loan processing fee is always revenue in nature. Since the purpose for which the loan was taken was not examined nor explained by the assessee, we deem it proper to set-aside the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to examine the purpose of loan in connection of which the loan processing fee was paid by the assessee. If the loan was on account of working capital, then the loan processing fee has to be allowed as revenue expenditure. The Assessing Officer may decide the matter after calling for the necessary details and explanation of the assessee in this respect. The ground of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rowings of the assessee had also increased from Rs. 10.76 crores on 31.03.2020 to Rs. 20.24 crores as on 31.03.2021. Considering the fact that the short-term borrowings of the assessee had almost doubled during the year, it was incumbent upon the Assessing Officer to examine whether the short-term borrowings obtained during the year were utilized towards investment in shares, rather than making ad-hoc addition on mere suspicion. At the same time the assessee had merely submitted that it had sufficient own funds without explaining the immediate source of the investment made in the shares. As the shares were acquired during the year it was necessary to examine the immediate source from which these investments were made. The disallowance of in....