TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 1837
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") and relates to Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2018-19. 2. Ground No.1 raised by the Revenue reads as under: "(a) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,06,68,000/- on account of cessation of liability u/s 41(1) of the Act despite the fact the assessee has shown "Loan Taken from others" in liability side of Balance Sheet and there was no change in the credit balances of the loans during the AY 2018-19 as compared to previous years and the assessee has failed to furnish basic documentary evidences such as confirmation from lenders, bank trail evidencing receipt of loans or loan agreements to establish the genuineness of tran....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bmitted that at the time of acceptance of these loans there were no commercial activities in the company and the amount was utilised for the purpose of capital expenditure incurred to establish the manufacturing unit. The company started commercial activities during the year only and for the purpose of working capital the company had accepted share capital too. The appellant has also stated that it may also be verified that working capital involvement is very less i.e. 20.82 lakhs (Inventories 18.04+Sundry Debtors 14.78 less Current Liabilities 12.00 lakhs) and which is from share capital and not from unsecured loans. The appellant has provided the copy of audited financial statements for the year 2009-10 to show that the loans were outstan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lized for the capital purposes by the Ld. CIT(A) and which fact has remained undisturbed before us. In the light of the same, we find that there is no case made out by the Revenue before us against the deletion of addition made u/s. 41(1) of the Act amounting to Rs. 1.06 Crore. 6. Ground of appeal No.1 is, therefore, dismissed. 7. The Ground No.2 of appeal raised by the Revenue as under: "(b) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 7,66,531/- on account of disallowance u/s 37 for business expenses despite the fact that the assessee has failed to furnish corroborative evidences like vouchers, bills, payments proofs or third party confirmation to establish that the expenditure was incurred w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wance made by the AO. 11. Ground of appeal No.2, accordingly, is dismissed. 12. The Ground No.3 of appeal raised by the Revenue as under: "(c) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs 1,08,80,385/- u/s 40A(3) of the Act in respect of cash payment despite the fact that the assessee has not furnished complete evidences to establish that no payments above Rs. 10,000/- made in cash." 13. The issue involved in the above ground relates to the disallowance of expenses amounting to Rs. 1,08,93,739/- made by the AO by invoking Section 40A(3) of the Act noting that the expenses had been incurred in cash in excess of the limit specified for the same under the said Section. The Ld. CIT(A), however, n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Rs 1,59,728/- u/s 28 of the Act on account of Audit Fees Payable and Statutory due payable despite the fact that the assessee has furnished contradictory replies during assessment proceedings and has not submitted any payment evidence." 17. The issue involved in the above ground relates to addition made of Rs. 1,59,728/- u/s.28 of the Act on account of provision made for audit fees. The addition being made on account of no evidence being submitted by the assessee for the provisions so made. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted that the provisions for audit fees had been made as per accounting standard and that it was not a statutory provision which was required as per law to be paid before the date specified in law for claimin....