WALKER CHANDIOK & CO.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 98/DEL/2015Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 June 2018AY 2011-127 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal allowed the disallowance of electricity expenses and the direction regarding rent admissibility. It remanded the issue of interest disallowance to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication and dismissed the disallowance of depreciation on cars.

What were the facts?

The assessee firm challenged disallowances on electricity expenses, interest paid to a partner, and depreciation on cars. The Tribunal noted that these issues were decided in a previous assessment year for the same assessee.

What were the issues?

Whether disallowances on electricity expenses, interest to partner, and depreciation on cars are justified. Whether the CIT(A) can issue directions on issues not before him.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 40(b),Section 38(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Before: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Respondent: Shri Amit Jain, Sr. DR
Hearing: 04.06.2018Pronounced: 05.06.2018
7.

In view of the above findings reached by this Tribunal in the similar facts and circumstances, and respectfully following the decision of Co-ordinate Bench referred to above, ground No. 1 raised by the assessee is allowed, ground No. 3 is allowed for statistical purposes and the matter is sent back to the file of Assessing Officer for deciding this issue in the light of our decision given in appeal of assessee for A.Y. 2010-11 and ground No. 4 of the assessee is dismissed.

8.

By way of ground No. 2, the assessee has also challenged the direction of the ld. CIT(A) issued to the Assessing Officer to look into the admissibility of rent paid by assessee to M/s. Bhakru & Associates. The contention of the assessee has been that on this issue neither the Assessing Officer made any disallowance in the assessment order nor has the assessee raised this issue in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and therefore, this issue having not been emerged out of the assessment order, the ld. CIT(A) was not justified to given such a direction which is beyond the subject matter of appeal before him. No counter submissions are made on behalf of the Revenue to discard the submissions made by the assessee. More so, this issue has also been decided by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee in the same set of facts and circumstances in its appeal for A.Y. 2010-11, in view of which, we do not think it justified to sustain such directions of the ld. CIT(A) in the instant case. Accordingly, ground No. 2 of appeal deserves to be allowed.

More judgments on Section 40(b)

All 428 judgments and leading authorities on Section 40(b) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →