ITO, WARD-1, JHARSUGUDA vs. UMESH KUMAR PODDAR, JHARSUGUDA

ITA 138/CTK/2016Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 August 2017AY 2011-128 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition on bid expenses, finding no infirmity in the assessee's consistent accounting method. Similarly, the addition on interest on unsecured loans was deleted as the assessee was considered to be in business exploring new avenues.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer disallowed bid expenses and interest on unsecured loans, considering them not genuine or not utilized for business purposes. The assessee claimed these expenses based on mercantile accounting and participation in bid processes.

What were the issues?

Whether bid expenses and interest on unsecured loans are allowable expenses when the assessee follows the mercantile method of accounting and participates in bid processes.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 36

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(4)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.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK

Before: S/SHRI N.S SAINI & PAVAN KUMAR GADALE

For Appellant: Shri P.R.Mohanty, AR
For Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR
Hearing: 23/08

Per N.S.Saini, AM This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A)- Cuttack dated 29.1.2016 for the assessment year 2011-12. 2. In Ground No.1 of the appeal, the grievance of the revenue is that the CIT(A) erred in deleting addition of Rs.65.71 lakhs on account of bid

expenses.

3.

The brief facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer found that the assessee in his P/L account has claimed/debited Toll Plaza Bid Money

of Rs.1,99,71,600/- and in the balance sheet had shown advance Bid

Money of Rs.65,71,538/-. The Assessing Officer collected information

from Odisha Bridge & Construction Corporation Ltd. and found that M/s.

Odisha Bridge & Construction Corporation Ltd. confirmed that they have

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 36

All 261 judgments and leading authorities on Section 36 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →