AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 1138
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... IT Act, 1961, without properly appreciating facts of the case when assessee company failed to substantiate the genuineness of the alleged sales and failed to rebut the findings of the AO regarding accommodation entries.? 2. Whether on the fact and circumstance of the case and in law the, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 9,74,20,891/- made under Section 10AA, ignoring the AO's finding that the assessee was not engaged in manufacturing or production as required under the provision. 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and as per law, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in deleting the disallowance made by the AO with regard to the applicability of provisions of section 14A r.w.r. 8D of the Act and ignoring the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme. Court in the case of CIT Vs. Rajendra Prasad Moody [1978] 115 ITR 519 (SC) and CBDT's Circular No. 5 of 2014 dated 11.02.2014 and further by not considering the retrospective applicability of Explanation to Section 14A introduced via Finance Act 2022?" 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income on 28/11/2016 declaring total income at Rs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ith respect to the purchase order is maintained by the assessee. The AO also rubbished the claim of the assessee that the receipt of Rs. 13,03,42,638/- is against outstanding balance against supply of firefighting and safety protection material. The AO also rubbished the claim that during the year sales of Rs. 2,27,12,573/- only, was made. Disbelieving the contention of the assessee the AO made addition of Rs. 15,30,55,210/-. 3.2. The assessee strongly agitated the matter before the ld. CIT(A) and reiterated its claim that amount of Rs. 13,03,42,638/- is received against opening balance pertaining to AY 2015-16 and the balance of the sales made during the year which has been duly accounted for in the regular books of accounts. After considering the facts and submissions, the ld. CIT(A) was convinced that since the amount of Rs. 13,03,42,638/- is received from sales made in earlier years, the same cannot be considered u/s 68 of the Act for the year under consideration. Insofar as the balance amount of Rs. 2,27,12,573/- is concerned, the ld. CIT(A) was convinced that the taxability of the same is not in dispute as the assessee itself has offered the same as business income and the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ut that this is the seventh year of claim and in the earlier assessment years the claim has been allowed. 8.1. The submission of the assessee did not find any favour with the AO. The AO was of the opinion that the assessee is only carrying out calibration activities. Therefore, it cannot be called as assembling of the goods and the assessee is not involved in any manufacturing activities at Visakhapatnam SEZ. The AO further observed that in the earlier years also the claim of deduction u/s 10AA of the Act was disallowed and accordingly disallowed the same for the year under consideration also. 8.2. The assessee carried the matter before the ld. CIT(A) and reiterated its claim of deduction u/s 10AA of the Act and pointed out that the claim of deduction has been allowed in earlier years. After considering the facts and the submissions, the ld. CIT(A) found that this is a repetitive issue and has already been decided by the Tribunal vide order dated 08/02/2019 in ITA No. 2865/Mum/2017 for AY 2012-13, basis which the ld. CIT(A) deleted the disallowance of Rs. 9,74,20,891/-. 8.2.1. The ld. D/R could not controvert the findings of the ld. CIT(A) but stated that the decision of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... we do not find any error or infirmity in the findings of the ld. CIT(A) and dismiss Ground No. 3. 13. Now, we take up the revenue's appeal in ITA No. 3695/Mum/2025. The grievance of the revenue reads as under:- "1. On facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 7,39,51,688/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of bogus accommodation entries treated as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without properly appreciating the findings of the Investigation Wing and the material brought on record during the reassessment proceedings. 2. On facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding the sale transactions with M/s Pankaj Metal Centre Put. Ltd. as genuine on the basis of documentary evidence submitted by the assessee, and ignoring the fact that the party M/s Pankaj Metal Centre Put. Ltd was identified as an accommodation entry provider by investigation wing. 3. On facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the consequential addition of Rs. 36,97,584/- made towards estimated commission income, without appreciating th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... against sales made to Pankaj Metal Centre Pvt. Ltd. and the payment of VAT thereon. The assessee further explained that the goods sold were not as per the required standard and was rejected and returned back to the group associate company Pankaj Metal Centre Pvt. Ltd.. Necessary VAT applicable on the sale and purchase of detailed accordingly and duly reflected in the books of accounts of the assessee. It was further explained that European Metal Pvt. Ltd. and Volition Trading Pvt. Ltd. both have agreed for not raising debit/credit note for purchase return but instead they agreed to re-purchase the same material in their sister concern/associate concern and repay the money in full. The assessee also furnished copy of tax invoices with VAT, delivery challans, copy of Ledger account confirmations, details of material sold to Pankaj Metal Centre Pvt. Ltd.. The submissions of the assessee along with documentary evidences were rejected by the AO who was of the firm belief that the entries made are accommodation entries and accordingly added the amount of Rs. 7,39,51,689/- and further added commission of 5% to Rs. 36,97,584/- being commission paid for the alleged accommodation entry. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Park Mahape City Navi Mumbai Taluka Thane Dist:Raigarh 1-Apr-2014 to 31-Mar-2016 Page 1 Date Particulars Vch Type Vch No. Debit Credit 2-3-2015 Cr SALES TRADING @12.5% SALES TRADING NF/SS/1731A/P/2014 2,87,38,310.00 3-3-2015 Cr SALES TRADING @12.5% SALES TRADING NF/SS/1742A/P/2014 2,87,38,310.00 4-3-2015 Cr SALES TRADING @ 12.5% SALES TRADING NF/SS/1747A/P/2014 2,87,38,310.00 10-3-2015 Cr SALES TRADING @ 12.5% SALES TRADING NF/SS/1776/AP/2014 1,23,43,668.00 16-3-2015 Cr SALES TRADING @12.5% SALES TRADING NF/SS/1789A/P/2014 1,41,40,473.00 17-3-2015 Cr SALES TRADING @ 12.5% SALES TRADING NF/SS/1803A/P/2014 1,76,43,567.75 13,03,42,638.75 Dr Closing Balance 13,03,42,638.75 13,03,42,638.75 13,03,42,638.75 1-4-2015 Cr Opening Balance 13,03,42,638.75 4-6-2015 Dr ICICI BANK LTD. 002005009855 Receipt 477 1.00,00,000.00 15-6-2015 Dr ICICI BANK LTD. 002005009855 Receipt 540 ≤1,76,43,569.00 18-6-2015 Dr ICICI BANK LTD. 002005009855 Receipt 582 73.99,80,062.00 20-6-2015 Dr ICICI BANK LTD. 002005009855 Receipt 605 61,95,000.00 Dr ICICI BANK LTD. 002005009855 Receipt 606 (3,83,44,584.00 ....