TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 28
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....account of credit card payments ignoring the fact that assessee has failed to produce any concrete and additional evidences in support of its contention. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,09,120/- made on account of disallowance of Rs. 3,09,120/- as depreciation and amortization expenses ignoring the fact that assessee has failed to produce any concrete and additional evidences in support of its contention. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred law and facts and ignoring the fact that the claim for deductions on account of claim of deduction for premium on debentures amounting to Rs. 2,01,99,731/- had not been made in its original income tax return and revised return by the assessee nor was made before the AO during the course of assessment proceedings. 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred law and facts and ignoring the fact that Honourab'le Supreme Court in its Judgement in the case 'M/s Goetze (India) Ltd. has observed that any claim which has not been made in the Income tax r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 100% subsidiary company named M/s JITF Waterways Ltd. The ld AR stated that the assessee is in the business of logistics and transport of coal as in the year 2011, the assessee successfully bid tender with NTPC for transporting their imported coal from High seas to the port which included procurement of barges, building of jetty at Farakka near NTPC plant, unloading of coal and transferring them in the barges and transporting it to Farakka. In the immediate two previous years, the assessee was also engaged in the trading of steel pipes. The ld AR stated that the assessee furnished evidences before the lower authorities to show that various agreements were entered into through its subsidiaries for work and various proposals were submitted to the authorities for development of infrastructure-projects. The assessee raised funds also that were required for meeting expenses to carry out the infrastructure development. 9. The ld AR further submitted that any infrastructure development activity is a time taking process and entails various preparations and activities. The revenues start coming after a long time. If the revenue is considered as the only base for allowing expenditure, in t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sdictional High Court in the case of Maruti Insurance Broking (P.) Ltd. 435 ITR 34 (Del.). wherein it has been held as under :- "It was held in this case that business does not conform to 'cold start' doctrine and most cases, there was gap between time a person or entity is ready to do business and when business is conducted and during this period, expenses are incurred towards keeping business primed up and these expenses cannot be capitalized. Hence, it was held that expenditure incurred between setting up and commencement of business could not have been capitalized and was to be allowed as business expenditure." Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Whirlpool India Ltd 318 ITR 347 (Del) held that the company was a financial enterprise and the business is set up when the directors and staff are appointed and their salaries paid, computer acquired and installed. Hence, expenditure under section 37(1) is allowable. Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Hughes Escorts Communications (165 Taxman 318) held that the assessee correctly claimed that date on which purchase order was placed should be reckoned as the date on which its business was set up and expen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tly deleted by the CIT(A). Ground no 2 and 3 of Revenue is dismissed. 18. Brief facts relating to Ground No. 4 pertaining to deletion of addition of Rs. 2,01,99,731/- on account of claim of deduction for premium on Non-Convertible Debentures. The appellant claimed that there was accrued liability of Rs. 4,58,00,477/- on account of premium on NCDs and was claimed that the same should be allowed as deduction for the year under consideration. 19. The CIT(A) found from the books of accounts that the assessee has made a provision for premium on NCDs of Rs. 4,82,39,000/- in the balance sheet. The CIT(A) found that there is a variation in the liability shown in the balance sheet for the year and in the claim made by the assessee. In the balance sheet, from the securities premium account, the amount of Rs. 4,82,39,000/- has been reduced being premium on redemption of NCD. However, there is no debit in the Profit and Loss account for the year under consideration. In the computation of income also, there is no claim on account of premium on NCDs. 20. The CIT(A) held that the premium on Non-Convertible Debentures (NCDs) and the premium on Compulsory Convertible Debentures (CCDs) are differ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt AY 2013- 14, which has already lapsed. The ld AR submitted that in view of the losses being carried forward and the loss of the instant year having lapsed, there would not be any tax effect involved. 24. We have heard the rival submissions and have perused the relevant material on record. From the perusal of the grounds no 4 and 5 of the appeal, we find that the Revenue has not disputed the deduction on merits. We further find that the Revenue's main grievance is that the CIT(A) should not have allowed deduction for premium on NCDs as the assessee had not made the claim in the original return or the revised return or before the AO during the assessment proceedings following the decision of Goetz India Ltd. The issue of powers of the assessing authorities i.e., the AO and the appellate authorities i.e., the CIT(A) to adjudicate on claims which are not made in the return of income either original or revised, has been elucidated by the hon'ble Supreme Court itself in the decision of Wipro Finance Ltd (supra) when it elaborated the decision in Goetz India as under: "11. Learned ASG had placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uch a situation, filing a revised return under section 139(5) of the IT Act claiming carrying forward of losses subsequently would not help the assessee. In the present case, the assessee filed its original return under section 139(1) and not under section 139(3). Therefore, the Revenue is right in submitting that the revised return filed by the assessee under section 139(5) can only substitute its original return under Section 139(1) and cannot transform it into a return under Section 139(3), in order to avail the benefit of carrying forward or set-off of any loss under Section 80 of the IT Act. The assessee can file a revised return in a case where there is an omission or a wrong statement. But a revised return of income, under Section 139(5) cannot be filed, to withdraw the claim and subsequently claiming the carried forward or set- off of any loss. Filing a revised return under Section 139(5) of the IT Act and taking a contrary stand and/or claiming the exemption, which was specifically not claimed earlier while filing the original return of income is not permissible. By filing the revised return of income, the assessee cannot be permitted to substitute the original return of i....