TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 1416
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ground of appeal, assessee has pleaded that ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in confirming the determination of income at Rs. 31,77,60,505/- as against returned income of Rs. 24,32,43,801/-. The first addition disputed in the income of the assessee is of a sum of Rs. 7 Crores. 4. The brief facts of the case are that a search u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act was conducted at the business premises of M/s Tara Health Foods Ltd. On 12.10.2010. Accordingly, a notice u/s 153A was issued and served upon the assessee. In response to the notice, assessee has filed its return of income on 21.09.2012 declaring total income of Rs. 24,32,43,800/-. The ld. AO has issued notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income Tax Act. On scrutiny of the accounts, ld. AO has observed that during the course of search, at the factory at Jitwal Kalan, a loose paper inventorized as page No.3 of the Annexure A-2 was found. The contents of this page are reproduced by the AO on page No. 3 of the assessment order. In brief, the contents exhibit that assessee has advanced a sum of Rs. 2 Crore Rs. 2 Crore and Rs. 3 Crore on 20.12.2009, 22.12.2009 and 24.12.2009 in cash to M/s Muez Hest Process Tech (P) Ltd. This amount was....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... does not have any nexus with the business of the assessee, addition ought to have not been made upon the assessee. 7. On the other hand, ld. DR contended that loose paper was found from the premises of the assessee, therefore, it is to be assumed that assessee has paid sum of Rs. 7 Cr to the entity of Mumbai and received back the amount. It is unable to explain the source of such payment. In support of his contention, he relied upon judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S. Rudramuniyappa vs Commissioner of Income Tax reported in 75 taxmann.com 241. 8. We have duly considered the rival contentions and gone through the record. A perusal of the record would indicate that except a loose paper, no other corroborative material was found by the Revenue at the time of search. No doubt, it is a computerized sheet which does not have any signature of any person, but it has not been demonstrated by the assessee that narrations available on this page have actually been acted upon by the parties. The other connected party is M/s Meuz Hest India Pvt. Ltd. from whom assessee has been purchasing the machinery and it has made purchases of machinery having value of Rs. 1.07 Cr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ement passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income v. MDLR Hotels (P.) Ltd [2024] 166 taxmann.com 327 (Delhi) 6. Judgement passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Shiv Kumar Nayyar [2024] 163 taxmann.com 9 (Delhi) 7. Judgement passed by Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Sapna Gupta [2023] 147 taxmann.com 288 (Allahabad) 8. Judgement passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Siddarth Gupta [2023] 450 ITR 534 (Allahabad) 9. Judgement passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Subodh Agarwal [2023] 149 taxmann.com 373 10. Decision of ITAT Chandigarh Bench in ITA Nos. 140 to 145/CHD/2024 dated 17.01.2025 10. The ld. CIT DR, on the other hand, relied upon the orders of Revenue Authorities and he submitted that proper approval was granted to the assessee. 11. We have duly considered the rival contentions and gone through the record. The copy of the approval dated 25.03.20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....53,401/- Leave with wages 3,85,807/- Professional charges 8,74,063/- Total Rs. 1,20,37,522/- % of turnover of Sitarganj Unit in proportion to total turnover = 26.93% The expenses relating to Sitarganj Unit =12037522 x 26.93 % = 32,41,705/- Therefore, the deduction u/s 80IC is reduced by Rs. 32,41,705/-. Penalty proceedings u/s 271AAA for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income thereby resulting in concealment of income are initiated. 13. The appeal to the CIT (Appeals), did not bring any relief to the assessee. 14. With the assistance of ld. Representative, we have gone through the record carefully. We find that AO has not elaborated the issue whether assessee was maintaining separate accounts for the unit eligible for 80IC or not ? If yes, then how much expenses assessee has itself allocated. On a perusal of these details, we find that issue regarding Professional Charges, Gratuity, Charity and Donations, IPO Expenses has nothing to do for apportionment. These are fundamental expenses at the Head Office level. How they have impacted the overall working of a unit eligible for 80IC. The AO has nowhere discussed the reply of the ....