SHELL & PEARL PORCELLANO LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(1)(3),, AHMEDABAD
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: DR. BRR KUMAR & MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE
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.
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/-.
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.
Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. Asst.Year –2012-13 - 3–
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.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes
This Order pronounced in Open Court on 17.01.2025 (SUCHITRA KAMBLE)
VICE PRESIDENT
()
Ahmedabad; Dated 17.01.2025
Manish, Sr. PSआदेश कᳱ ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. अपीलाथᱮ / The Appellant
2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / The Respondent.
3. संबंिधत आयकर आयुᲦ / Concerned CIT
4. आयकर आयुᲦ(अपील) / The CIT(A)-
5. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad
6. गाडᭅ फाईल / Guard file.
आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,
उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.