Need Tally
for Clients?

Contact Us! Here

  Tally Auditor

License (Renewal)
  Tally Gold

License Renewal

  Tally Silver

License Renewal
  Tally Silver

New Licence
  Tally Gold

New Licence
 
Open DEMAT Account with in 24 Hrs and start investing now!
« From the Courts »
Open DEMAT Account in 24 hrs
 Inordinate delay in income tax appeal hearings
 Income Tax leviable on Tuition Fee in the Year of Rendering of Services: ITAT
 Supreme Court invoked its power under Article 142 of Constitution to validate notices issued under section 148 as notices issued under section 148A. However the same shall be subject to amended provisions of section 149.
 ITAT refuses to stay tax demand on former owner of Raw Pressery brand
 Bombay HC sets aside rejection of refund claims by GST authorities
 [Income Tax Act] Faceless Assessment Scheme does not take away right to personal hearing: Delhi High Court
 Rajasthan High Court directs GST Authority to Unblock Input Tax Credit availed in Electronic Credit Ledger
 Sebi-taxman fight over service tax dues reaches Supreme Court
 Delhi High Court Seeks Status Report from Centre for Appointments of Chairperson & Members in Adjudicating Authority Under PMLA
 Delhi High Court allows Income Tax Exemption to Charitable Society running Printing Press and uses Profit so generated for Charitable Purposes
 ITAT accepts Lease Income as Business Income as Business Investments were mostly in nature of Properties

AD 2C (India) Pvt. Ltd., 601-612, 6th Floor, JMD Megapolis, Sector-48, Sohna Road, Gurgaon Vs. ACIT, Circle 1(1), Gurgaon.
February, 07th 2020
                 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
                      DELHI BENCH `SMC', NEW DLEHI

               BEFORE : SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER

                            ITA No.999/Del/2019
                          Assessment Year: 2015-16

AD 2C (India) Pvt. Ltd.,                 vs.    ACIT, Circle 1(1),
601-612, 6th Floor, JMD Megapolis,              Gurgaon.
Sector-48, Sohna Road, Gurgaon
PAN : AAJCA 7779A
(Appellant)                                         (Respondent)

                    Appellant by :       None
                    Respondent by:       Ms. Rinku Singh, Sr. DR.

                    Date of hearing             :        04.02.2020
                    Date of Pronouncement       :        06.02.2020

                                     ORDER

       The present appeal has been filed by the assessee, wherein correctness
of the order dated 30.11.2018 of CIT(A), Gurgaon pertaining to 2015-16
assessment year is assailed on the following grounds :

      "1.    On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the
      CIT(A) erred in sustaining addition in respect of Service Tax paid in a sum
      of Rs.11,97,876, wherein CENVAT credit could not be availed.

      2.     On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the
      CIT(A) erred in sustaining addition in respect of various expenses
      incurred under the head "Other Minor Miscellaneous Advances Written
      off Rs.294025".

2.    At the time of hearing, no one was present on behalf of the assessee. It
is seen that the appeal was filed on 07.02.2019 and came up for hearing on
03.09.2019. On the said date, the assessee remained un-represented.
                                        2


Thereafter, the appeal came up for hearing again on 12th December, 2019. On
the said date the assessee was represented by Sr. Manager Saras Kumar.
However, no submissions were advanced on behalf of the assessee and time
appears to have been taken, which was granted. Thereafter, the appeal came
up for hearing on 04.02.2020, but assessee again remained un-represented.
The appeal was passed over, but none was present on behalf of the assessee.
In the circumstances, it was deemed appropriate to proceed ex parte qua
assessee appellant on merits.






3.     The ld. DR relies on the impugned order. The assessee, as per record, is
shown to be engaged in the business of mobile advertisement and declared
income at Rs. Nil. The Assessing Officer required the assessee to explain the
allowability of following expenditure u/s. 37(1) of the Act :
       Provision for doubtful receivables        :Rs.11,67,087/-
       Bad Debts                                 :Rs.29,55,869/-
       Advances written off                      :Rs.29,55,189/-

Ultimately, the Assessing Officer disallowed the amount of Rs.29,55,189, the
details of which are as under :
       (i).     Debit notes pertaining to volume discounts written off
                Rs.14,63,288/-
       (ii).    Service tax which could not be claimed as CENVAT Rs.11,97,876/-
       (iii).   Other minor miscellaneous advances written off.

4.     The issue was challenged in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who granted
part relief holding as under :-

       "Each of the aforesaid amounts is being discussed as under: -

      (i) Debit notes pertaining to volume discounts written off Rs.
14,63,288/-
                                       3


      It is seen from the documents filed by the appellant that the appellant
      had reduced Rs. 88,21,352/- out of its operating expenses during the
      year 13-14 relevant assessment year 14-15. It is further seen that the
      appellant had debited the accounts of the various parties against whom
      the debit notes were raised during the year 13- 14. It is therefore seen
      that these amounts were not advances but in the nature of debits on
      account of debit notes pertaining to volume discount raised by the
      appellant. Evidently, the expenditure had been reduced during the
      financial year 13-14 by this amount, implying thereby that these
      amounts had been included in the income of the appellant in the
      immediately preceding year. Any adjustment with regard to these
      volume discounts and debit notes would therefore be allowable
      expenditure. The addition made by the AO to this extent is deleted.

      Service tax which could not be claimed as CENVAT Rs. 11,97,876/-

      As regards the amount of ^ 11, 97 876 paid towards the service tax for
      the services received by the company when the services offered were in
      the negative list of the service tax, it is evident from the submissions of
      the appellant that these amounts were paid by the appellant although
      the same were not payable. Merely because the vendors failed to
      provide the supplementary bills because of which the appellant failed to
      take the CENVAT credit does not imply that the amounts would be
      allowable as business expenditure. The disallowance made by AO to this
      extent is confirmed.

      (iii)   Other minor miscellaneous advances written off.

      7. As regards the various expenses under this head, it is seen that all
      these amounts were paid by the appellant although these amounts
      were not payable or these amounts were paid in excess. As such, these
      expenses do not partake the character of business expenses. It cannot
      be said that these expenses were incurred fully and exclusively for the
      purposes of the business of the appellant. The addition made with
      regard to these miscellaneous expenses is confirmed."






5.    On a reading of the above, it is seen that the reasoning and conclusions
arrived at on facts appear to be justified. In the absence of any material to
show any infirmity in the same brought on record, I find no good reason to
                                       4


interfere with the impugned order. The additions sustained by the ld. CIT(A)
are, accordingly, upheld.

5.    In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

      Order was pronounced in the open court at the time of hearing itself.
                                                                Sd/-
                                                      (DIVA SINGH)
                                                   JUDICIAL MEMBER

Dated: 06/02/2020
`aks'

Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2024 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Ritz Consulting