2025 (11) TMI 1478

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l: RE: GENERAL GROUND 1. That the impugned order is bad in law, since it is perverse, contrary to facts on record and hence, the same deserves to be set aside. 2. The Ld. Additional / Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), ACIT / JCIT(A)-1, Mumbai ('Ld. CIT(A)') erred in law and in fact to uphold the assessee has not furnished any documentary evidence and merely stated the facts, which was not found to be satisfactory. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the Appellant's submissions in a reasoned and judicious manner, thereby violating the principles of natural justice and resulting in a mechanical confirmation of the adjustments made in the Intimation under section 143(1) issued b....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....26.03.2020, the assessee revised its return of income only to modify disclosure in Schedule BP of ITR pursuant to a proposed adjustment under section 143(1)(a) of the Act. However, the income in the revised return was the same as declared in the original return. During the year, the assessee acquired the debt division of M/s. Caspian Impact Investment Advisor Pvt. Ltd. ("demerged company") pursuant to a scheme of demerger approved by the Hon'ble NCLT vide order dated 24.10.2019. To give effect to the said demerger, the assessee again filed a second revised return of income on 30.09.2020 declaring total income of Rs. 8,58,78,905/- under the normal provisions and Rs. 8,42,68,147/- under section 115JB of the Act. The second revised return ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....owed the said amount of Rs. 13,22,458/- representing "loss on sale of fixed assets" while filing the return of income. However, CPC again made a disallowance of the same amount, which has resulted in double disallowance in the hands of the assessee. Since the assessee had already added back the said sum, there was no justification for CPC to make a further adjustment. Accordingly, the Ld. AR prayed before the Bench for deletion of Rs. 13,22,458/- made by the CPC. 8. On the disallowance of Rs. 10,41,545/- under section 43B of the Act, the Ld. AR invited our attention to Note No. 29 of the audited financial statements, which records that a provision of Rs. 10,41,545/- was standing in the books of the demerged company as on 01.04.2018. It w....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 8,07,70,603 Less: Income treated separately     Unamortised portion of loan processing fee on borrowings   1,35,40,569 Income treated under other head of Income   1,41,99,594 Depreciation/amortisation as per IT Act   3,60,34,762 Expenses on account of demerger provisions of section 35DD of the Act   1,72,250 Amount Allowed under Section 36(1)(viia) (d)   45,38,850     6,84,86,025 Add: Expenses treated separately/disallowed     Depreciation/amortisation as per Companies Act   2,87,95,994 Provision for standard assets   27,16,564 Provision for non-perf....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s own disallowed the said sum in its computation of income while filing the return. Therefore, the adjustment made by CPC under section 143(1)(a) of the Act has led to double disallowance, which is not sustainable. Accordingly, the addition of Rs. 13,22,458/- is directed to be deleted. 12. On the disallowance of Rs. 10,41,545/- under section 43B of the Act, we have gone through the note No. 29 of the Audited Financial Statement of the assessee, which is to the following effect: 13. On perusal of the above, we find that the assessee has adequately demonstrated through Note No. 29 of the audited accounts that the provision stood in the books of the demerged company as on 01.04.2018 and was transferred pursuant to the scheme of demerger.....