M/S PMT MACHINES LTD,PUNE vs. ACIT MUMBAI CENTRAL CIR,2(4), MUMBAI

O R D E R PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM: These are appeals preferred by the assessee against order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-48, Mumbai [hereinafter “CIT(A)”] dated 17.01.2022 for AY. 2013-14 and for AY. 2016-17. 2. The grounds of appeal

preferred by the assessee in these appeals are as under: - “1. The Learned CIT(A) erred in a confirming the addition of Rs 1,49,43,33,555 on account of additions to share capital and share premium account as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act. Reasons assigned by him for confirming the same are wrong and insufficient. Therefore, Appellant prays for the deletion of additions confirmed by the Learned CIT(A)

2. The Learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs 17,86,01,265 by disallowing interest on ECB u/s 40(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Reasons assigned by him for Confirming the A.Y. 2016-17 & 2013-14 M/s. PMT Machines Ltd. same are “wrong and insufficient. Therefore Appellant prays for the deletion of additions confirmed by the Learned CIT(A).

3. The Learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of interest on Loans and Advances of Rs 15,44,71,197 on estimated basis. Reasons assigned by him for confirming the same are wrong and insufficient. Therefore Appellant prays for the deletion of additions confirmed by the Learned CIT(A).

4. The Learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition for administrative expenses of Rs 85,18,025 being 10% of the administrative expenses. Reasons assigned by him for confirming the same are wrong and insufficient. Therefore Appellant prays for the deletion of additions confirmed by the Learned CIT(A).

5. Order passed is bad in law and contrary to the provisions of the Act. Therefore, Appellant prays for the deletion of additions confirmed by the Learned CIT(A).

6. The appellant carves leave to add alter/modify the grounds of appeal.” Grounds for AY. 2013-14 “1. The Learned CIT(A) erred in confirming returned income at Rs. Nil as against loss of Rs.34,18,21,073 (comprising of current year depreciation Rs.29,27,40,931/- and current year business loss Rs.4,90,80,142/-) filed by the appellant for AY. 2013-14. Reasons assigned by him for confirming the same are wrong and insufficient.

2. The Learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the reduction in Capital WIP by Rs.62,96,61,020/-. This amount is comprised as under: - a. Rs.18,32,82,881/- being disallowed u/s 40(a)(i) on account of interest on External Commercial Borrowing (ECB) without considering the fact that the entire ECB has not been sourced from foreign entity. A.Y. 2016-17 & 2013-14 M/s. PMT Machines Ltd. b. Rs.5,04,52,186/- being disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) on account of interest on term loan from L&T Finance Limited without appreciating the fact that TDS was deposited in April 2014 and accordingly the same should not have reduced from CWIP. c. Rs.39,59,25,953/- being advances under Capital WIP. Reasons assigned by him for confirming the same are wrong and insufficient. Therefore, Appellant prays for the deletion of reduction in Capital WIP confirmed by the Learned CIT(A).

3. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of proportionate Interest expenses of Rs.8,71,70,713/- which is calculated @ 12% p.a on Loans and Advances of Rs.72,64,22,611/-. Reasons assigned by him for confirming the same are wrong and insufficient. Therefore, Appellant prays for the deletion of disallowance confirmed by the Learned CIT(A).

4. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Professional fees paid to Bigline Trading Private Limited of Rs.1,50,40,000/-. Reasons assigned by him for confirming the same are wrong and insufficient. Therefore Appellant prays for the deletion of disallowance confirmed by the Learned CIT(A).

5. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Bad Debts and sundry balances written off of Rs.80,92,164/-. Reasons assigned by him for confirming the same are wrong and insufficient. Therefore Appellant prays for the deletion of disallowance confirmed by the Learned CIT(A).

6. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Service Tax Expenses of Rs.52,93,968/- considering such expenses as pertaining to the years prior to the previous year. Reasons assigned by him for confirming the same are wrong and insufficient. Therefore Appellant prays for the deletion of disallowance confirmed by the Learned CIT(A). A.Y. 2016-17 & 2013-14 M/s. PMT Machines Ltd.

7. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the total investment for calculation of disallowance u/s 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of interest under Section 14A without reducing interest of Rs.16,70,74,784/- disallowed u/s 43B by the Appellant in the return of income filed and interest of Rs.8,71,70,713/- disallowed by ACIT. Reasons assigned by him for confirming the same are wrong and insufficient.

8. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the non-giving of set-off of assessed brought forward unabsorbed depreciation of Rs.3,61,91,670/- in computation of total assessed income. Reasons assigned by him for confirming the same are wrong and insufficient.

9. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the non-giving of MAT Credit u/s 115 JAA in computation of total income. Reasons assigned by him for confirming the same are wrong and insufficient.

10. Order passed is bad in law and contrary to the provisions of the Act. Therefore, Appellant prays for the deletion of additions confirmed by the Learned CIT(A).

11. The appellant carves leave to add alter/modify the grounds of appeal.”