SHELL & PEARL PORCELLANO LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(1)(3),, AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2851/AHD/2017Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 January 2025AY 2012-13Bench: DR. BRR KUMAR (Vice President), MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal directed that the matter needs to be examined by the CIT(A) again, considering any additional evidence filed by the assessee under Rule 46A. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, engaged in manufacturing and trading of tiles, filed its return for AY 2012-13 showing 'Nil' income with carry forward losses. The Assessing Officer made a disallowance of Rs. 8,70,87,276/-. The CIT(A) affirmed the AO's order.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) correctly confirmed the disallowances/additions related to bad debts, prior period expenses, additional depreciation, interest income, interest expenses, and other additions. Whether the matter requires re-examination by the CIT(A) with additional evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1),Section 36(1)(iii),Section 41(1),Section 46A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: DR. BRR KUMAR & MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE

For Appellant: Shri Firoj Bodla, AR
For Respondent: Shri AP Singh, CIT. DR
Pronounced: 17.01.2025

(Assessment Year: 2012-13) Shell & Pearl Porcellano Limited, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 207, Sarthik-II, Ward-4(1)(3), Opp. Rajpath Club, Ahmedabad. S.G Highway, Ahmedabad-380054. [PAN No.AAGCS2593B] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Firoj Bodla, AR Respondent by: Shri AP Singh, CIT. DR 16.01.2025 Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement 17.01.2025 O R D E R PER: DR. BRR KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT: This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Ahmedabad vide order dated 10.10.2017 passed for the Assessment Year 2012-13.

2.

The Assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:-

1) The Hon’ble CIT-A erred in law and on facts in confirming disallowance of Rs. 3,27,22,000/- on account of bad debts written off which were relating to the business of the appellant and hence the same addition to total income be deleted now. 2) The Hon’ble CIT-A erred in law and on facts in confirming addition of expenses of Rs. 6,29,371/- treating them as prior period expenses and hence the same addition to total income be deleted now.

Asst.Year –2012-13 - 2– 3) The Hon’ble CIT-A erred in law and on facts in confirming disallowance of additional depreciation on electrification charges which were part of cost of plant & machinery. The disallowance is without any base and justification and hence the same be allowed now. 4) The Hon’ble CIT-A has erred in law and on facts in confirming addition of Rs. 1,93,835/- in respect of interest income on the basis of Form 26AS and as shown in P & L Account though the company had fully offered interest to the income tax. The addition is without any base and justification and hence the same be deleted now. 5) The Hon’ble CIT-A has erred in law and on facts in confirming disallowance of interest expenses of Rs. 2,44,50,181/- on the ground that such expenses ought to have been capitalized under section 36(1)(iii). The addition confirmed by the Hon’ble CIT-A being without regard to the provisions of the section 36(1) (iii) and other applicable provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and without any base and justification and hence the same be deleted now. 6) The Hon’ble CIT-A has erred in law and on facts in confirming addition of Rs. 1,08,61,405/- under section 41(1) and hence the same addition to total income be deleted now.

3.

The facts of the case are that assessee is a limited company and engaged in the business of Manufacturing of Vitrified Tiles and Trading in Ceramic Tiles, Machinery and its parts. The return of income for the Assessment Year 2012-13 was e-filed on 28.09.2012 with returned total income at ‘Nil’ with carry forward of losses of Rs.54,67,13,608/-. The same was processed u/s.143(1) of the Act by Central Processing Centre, Bangalore accepting the total income as returned by the assessee-company. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment disallowing an amount of Rs.8,70,87,276/-.

4.

Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CI|T(A) who affirmed the order of the Assessing Officer.

5.

Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal.

Asst.Year –2012-13 - 3– 6. Before us, both parties fairly submitted that the matter needs to be examined by the Ld.CIT(A) in the back drop of the details submitted before the revenue authorities. The assessee can file any other evidences which they may rely upon in accordance with Rule 46A which the Ld.CIT(A) shall consider on merits of each ground. With this direction, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

7.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes This Order pronounced in Open Court on 17.01.2025

Sd/- Sd/- (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) (DR. BRR KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT (True Copy) Ahmedabad; Dated 17.01.2025 Manish, Sr. PS TRUE COPY आदेश क� �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 2. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु� / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु�(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,

More judgments on Section 36(1)(iii)

All 3,665 judgments and leading authorities on Section 36(1)(iii) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →