Appeal Details
Counselvise Citation
140720514 RSA 2007
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
CRN Number
Duration Of Justice
8 year(s) 3 month(s) 28 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
07-08-2015
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted
B
Next Hearing Date
23-07-2015
Assessment Year
2000-2001
Appeal Filed On
09-04-2007
Judgement Text
, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, AHMEDABAD .. , ( .) , BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGARWAL,VICE PRESIDENT (AZ) AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. ./ I.T.A.NO.4518/AHD/2003A.Y.2000-01 2. ./ I.T.A.NO.1407/AHD/2007A.Y.2000-01 3. ./ I.T.A.NO.2282/AHD/2012A.Y.2006-07 1. M/S.INDU NISSAN OXO CHEMICAL INDS.LTD. CHHANNI BAJWA ROAD BAJWA, BARODA 2. DO- 3. DO- / VS. 1. DY.CIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA 2. ITO, WARD-1(4) BARODA 3. ITO, WARD-1(4) BARODA % & ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AAAC 14359 M ( %( / APPELLANT ) .. ( )*%( / RESPONDENT ) %( + / APPELLANT BY : SHRI S.N.DIVATIA, AR )*%( , + / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI NARENDRA SINGH, SR.DR -. , /& / DATE OF HEARING 23/07/2015 0123 , /& / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 07/08/2015 / O R D E R PER SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THESE THREE APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AG AINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE LD.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X(APPEALS), AHMEDABAD/BARODA (CIT(A) IN SHORT) DATED 22/09/20 03 (CIT(A)-IV, ITA NOS.4518/AHD/2003 AY 2000-01, 1407/AHD/2007 AY 2000-01 & 2282/AHD/2012 AY 2006-07 INDU NISSAN OXO CHEMICAL INDS., LD. VS. DCIT/ITO - 2 - AHMEDABAD) FOR AY 2000-01, DATED 05/01/2007 (CIT(A) -I, BARODA) FOR AY 2000-0 (REOPENING PROCEEDINGS), DATED 16/07/201 2 (CIT(A)-V, BARODA) FOR AY 2006-07 RESPECTIVELY. THESE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS CONSOLID ATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. FIRST, WE TAKE UP THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IN ITA NO.4518/AHD/2003 FOR AY 2000-01. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOW ING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- ALL THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN THIS APPEAL ARE MUTUAL LY EXCLUSIVE AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO EACH OTHER. 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ER RED IN FACT AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER IN MAKING A DISALLOWANCE OF 20% OF LEGAL & PROFESSIONA L FEES AMOUNTING TO RS.5,000 BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ER RED IN FACT AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.64,00,0 00 U/S.68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, BEING RECEIPT OF CALL MONEY F ROM SHAREHOLDERS BY REJECTING THE MATERIALS AND EVIDENC ES PRODUCED BY THE APPELLANT NECESSARY FOR THE PURPOSE. 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ER RED IN FACT AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF PAYMEN T OF REMUNERATION TO MR.MEHOOL BHUVA, THE DIRECTOR OF TH E COMPANY CONSIDERING THE SAME AS EXCESSIVE TO THE EXTENT OF RS.30.00 LACS AND THEREFORE REQUIRED TO BE DISALLOWED U/S.40A(2)(B) O F THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE SA ME ON GROUNDS WHICH WERE ALL TOGETHER IRRELEVANT AND WITHOUT APPR ECIATING THE ITA NOS.4518/AHD/2003 AY 2000-01, 1407/AHD/2007 AY 2000-01 & 2282/AHD/2012 AY 2006-07 INDU NISSAN OXO CHEMICAL INDS., LD. VS. DCIT/ITO - 3 - SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT AND ALSO THE FACT S AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANTS CASE. 4. YOUR APPELLANT CRAVES THE RIGHT TOAD TO OR ALTER, A MEND, SUBSTITUTE, DELETE OR MODIFY ALL OR ANY OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 3. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT THE CASE OF THE A SSESSEE WAS PICKED UP FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AND THE ASSESSMENT U/S.143( 3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) WAS FRAMED VIDE ORDER DATED 28/03/2003. WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT, TH E ASSESSING OFFICER (AO IN SHORT) MADE VARIOUS DISALLOWANCES OF RS.1,60 ,631/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNPAID SALES-TAX LIABILITY, DISALLOWANCE OF RS.2,39 ,382/- ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE EARNED ON REALIZATION OF FOREIGN CURRENC Y OF EXPORT SALES, ADDITION OF RS.16,94,333/- ON ACCOUNT OF NON-CREDIT ING OF INTEREST ACCRUED ON FDR, DISALLOWANCE OF RS.70,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF W RONG CLAIM OF ELECTRICITY AND RENT EXPENSES, DISALLOWANCE OF RS.9 0,583/- ON ACCOUNT OF WRONG DEBIT OF PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES AND DISALLOWA NCE OF RS.5,000/- BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(3) OF THE AC T. THE AO ALSO MADE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED SHARE CAPITAL CO NTRIBUTION OF RS.64 LACS AND ALSO MADE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.30 LACS BEING THE REMUNERATION PAID TO THE DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE-C OMPANY. AGAINST THE SAID ASSESSMENT ORDER, ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A). THE LD.CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, DISMISSED THE APPEAL. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A), ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US. ITA NOS.4518/AHD/2003 AY 2000-01, 1407/AHD/2007 AY 2000-01 & 2282/AHD/2012 AY 2006-07 INDU NISSAN OXO CHEMICAL INDS., LD. VS. DCIT/ITO - 4 - 4. GROUND NO.1 IS AGAINST DISALLOWANCE OF RS.5,0 00/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(3) OF THE ACT. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT HE D OES NOT WISH TO PRESS THE GROUND BEING SMALLNESS OF THE AMOUNT INVOLVED. HOWEVER, HE RESERVES HIS RIGHT FOR THE LEGAL SUBMISSIONS. THE L D.SR.DR HAS NO OBJECTION. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES, WE DIS MISS THE GROUND AS NOT PRESSED ON ACCOUNT OF SMALLNESS OF THE AMOUNT INVOL VED. 5. GROUND NO.2 IS AGAINST CONFIRMATION OF ADDITION OF RS.64 LACS BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE DETAILS WERE SUBMIT TED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. HE SUBMITTED THAT TH E AUTHORITIES BELOW WERE NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING THE ADDITION. IT IS S UBMITTED BY THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE CONFIRMATION L ETTER OF NARENDRA HOLING PVT.LTD. WHO HAD RAISED MONEY ON BEHALF OF T HE ASSESSEE IS GIVEN. HE DREW OUR ATTENTION TOWARDS LETTER OF CONFIRMATI ON OF NARENDRA HOLDING PVT.LTD. DATED 26/03/2003, WHEREIN IT IS CO NFIRMED THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.64 LACS WAS PAID TO THE 3 RD PARTIES ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST CALLS IN ARREARS AND SHARE PREMIUM. THE LD .COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE JUDGEMENT OF HONB LE GUJARAT HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. CHANAKYA DEVE LOPERS REPORTED AT 43 TAXMANN.COM 91 (GUJ.). ITA NOS.4518/AHD/2003 AY 2000-01, 1407/AHD/2007 AY 2000-01 & 2282/AHD/2012 AY 2006-07 INDU NISSAN OXO CHEMICAL INDS., LD. VS. DCIT/ITO - 5 - 5.1. ON THE CONTRARY, LD.SR.DR SUBMITTED THAT THE A SSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO SUBMIT CONFIRMATION FROM THE PARTIES WHO HAVE RE CEIVED MONEY FROM NARENDRA HOLDING PVT.LTD. ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE. T HE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PLACED ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD AND ALSO THE LETTER I SSUED BY M/S.NARENDRA HOLDING PVT.LTD. DOES NOT MENTION THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO WHOM THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE. UNDER THESE FACTS, THE AUTHORI TIES BELOW WERE JUSTIFIED IN MAKING THE ADDITION. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THE EXPENDITURE ON ACCOUNT OF CALLS IN ARREARS AND SHARE PREMIUM. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT BY PROVIDING THE CONFIRMATIONS OF M/S.NARENDRA HOLDING PVT.LTD., THE INITIAL ONUS HAS BEEN DISCHARGED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE AO HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANYTHING CONTRARY TO THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE . 6.1. WE HAVE GIVEN OUR THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE CONTENTION OF THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND HAVE PERUSED TH E LETTER OF CONFIRMATION DATED 26/03/2003 PURPORTEDLY ISSUED BY NARENDRA HOL DING PVTG.LTD. HOWEVER, THE SAID LETTER DESCRIBES THE PAYMENT THRO UGH BANKING CHANNEL BUT HAS NOT MENTIONED THE NAMES OF THE 3 RD PARTIES IN WHOSE ACCOUNT SUCH AMOUNT HAS BEEN CREDITED. MOREOVER, THE ASSESSEE H AS ALSO NOT PLACED ITA NOS.4518/AHD/2003 AY 2000-01, 1407/AHD/2007 AY 2000-01 & 2282/AHD/2012 AY 2006-07 INDU NISSAN OXO CHEMICAL INDS., LD. VS. DCIT/ITO - 6 - ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD SUGGESTING THAT THOSE PAYMEN TS WERE MADE TO 3 RD PARTIES ON ACCOUNT OF CALLS IN ARREARS AND SHARE PR EMIUM AS THERE IS NO MENTION OF THE NAMES, ADDRESSES, ETC. OF THE PARTI ES TO WHOM THE ASSESSEE WAS LIABLE TO PAY CALLS IN ARREARS AND SHARE PREMIU M. IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH MATERIAL EVIDENCES WHICH WERE REQUIRED TO BE P LACED ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE , WE DO NOT SEE ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORIT IES BELOW, THE SAME ARE HEREBY CONFIRMED. THUS, THIS GROUND OF ASSESSEES APPEAL IS REJECTED. 7. GROUND NO.3 IS AGAINST DISALLOWANCE OF RS.30 LAC S BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(2)(B) OF THE ACT. THE LD .COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE SIMILAR DISALLOWANCE WA S MADE IN THE AY 1997-98 IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE BY THE AO AND THE IS SUE TRAVELLED UPTO THE STATE OF THIS TRIBUNAL (ITAT B BENCH AHMEDABA D) AND THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.721/AHD/2001 VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 17/05/2 013 HAS CONFIRMED THE DELETION MADE BY THE LD.CIT(A). HE SUBMITTED T HAT THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT IN TAX APPEAL NO.1071 OF 2013, ORD ER DATED 28 TH JANUARAY-2014 HAS AFFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNA L. UNDER THESE FACTS, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE DISALLOWANCES DESERVES TO BE DELETED. 7.1. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD.SR.DR SUBMITTED THAT E VERY ASSESSMENT YEAR IS AN INDEPENDENT YEAR. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE EXPE NDITURE IS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF THE REMUNERATION PAID TO ITS DIRECTOR. THE ITA NOS.4518/AHD/2003 AY 2000-01, 1407/AHD/2007 AY 2000-01 & 2282/AHD/2012 AY 2006-07 INDU NISSAN OXO CHEMICAL INDS., LD. VS. DCIT/ITO - 7 - ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO DEMONSTRATE THE SERVICES R ENDERED BY THE DIRECTOR TO ASCERTAIN THE REASONABLENESS OF THE PAY MENT MADE TO THE DIRECTOR. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVIDE THE INFORMATION WITH REGARD TO THE SERVICES RENDERED BY THE DIRECTOR TO WHOM THE REMUNERATION HAS BEEN PAID. 7.2. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED T HE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. IT IS SETTLED POSITION OF LAW THAT THE PROVISIONS O F SECTION 40A(2)(B) OF THE ACT CAN BE INVOKED IN THE EVENT WHERE ASSESSEE INCU RS ANY EXPENDITURE IN RESPECT OF WHICH PAYMENT HAS BEEN PAID OR IS TO BE MADE TO ANY PERSON REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE (B) OF SECTION 40A(2) AND TH E ASSESSING OFFICER IS OF THE OPINION THAT SUCH EXPENDITURE IS EXCESSIVE OR U NREASONABLE HAVING REGARD TO THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE GOODS, SERVI CES OR FACILITIES FOR WHICH THE PAYMENT IS MADE OR THE LEGITIMATE NEEDS O F THE BUSINESS OR PROFESSION OF THE ASSESSEE OR THE BENEFIT DERIVED B Y OR ACCRUING TO HIM THEREFROM, SO MUCH OF THE EXPENDITURE AS IS SO CONS IDERED BY HIM TO BE EXCESSIVE OR UNREASONABLE SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED AS A DEDUCTION. THEREFORE, THE AO HAS FIRST TO DETERMINE THE REASON ABLENESS OR EXCESSIVENESS HAVING REGARD TO THE FAIR MARKET VALU E OF THE SERVICES RENDERED. IN THE CASE IN HAND, THE AO HAS MADE DIS ALLOWANCE ON THE BASIS THAT NO VERIFIABLE RECORD WAS PLACED BEFORE T HE AO WHICH COULD INDICATE THE FACT THAT DIRECTOR, NAMELY SHRI MEHOOL N.BHUVA IMPARTED ITA NOS.4518/AHD/2003 AY 2000-01, 1407/AHD/2007 AY 2000-01 & 2282/AHD/2012 AY 2006-07 INDU NISSAN OXO CHEMICAL INDS., LD. VS. DCIT/ITO - 8 - ANY TECHNICAL SERVICES TO THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY. TH E AO WAS OF THE OPINION THAT MERE HOLDING OF QUALIFICATION DOES NOT LEAD TO INFERENCE THAT HE HAS INDEED RENDERED ANY SERVICES. THERE IS NO D ISPUTE WITH REGARD TO THE FACT THAT THE ISSUE IN QUESTION IS IDENTICAL AS WAS RAISED IN THE AY 1997-98. THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.721/AHD/2001 FOR AY 1997-98, IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE, VIDE IT ORDER DATED 17/05/2013 , IN PARA-47 HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER:- 47. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSE D THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. CIT(A) WHILE DELETING THE ADDI TION HAS NOTED THAT THE REMUNERATION TO MR.MEHUL BHUVA WAS APPROVE D BY THE MEMBERS OF THE COMPANY IN THE ANNUAL GENERAL MEETIN G, AND WAS ALSO APPROVED BY THE COMPANY LAW BOARD. HE HAS FUR THER NOTED THAT THE SALARY WAS TAXED IN HIS HAND AT THE MAXIMU M RATE. HE FURTHER RELIED ON THE DECISION OF DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SHRIRAM PISTON & RINGS LTD. 181 ITR 230. N OTHING HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE REVENUE TO CONTROVERT THE FINDINGS OF CIT(A). WE THEREFORE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFER E WITH HIS ORDER. THUS, THIS GROUND OF REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 7.3. THE REVENUE HAS NOT PLACED ANY MATERIAL ON REC ORD SUGGESTING THAT THERE IS CHANGE INTO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE PRESENT YEAR. THEREFORE, TAKING A CONSISTENT VIEW, WE HEREBY DIRE CT THE AO TO DELETE THE DISALLOWANCE. THUS, THIS GROUND OF ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 8. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOW ED. ITA NOS.4518/AHD/2003 AY 2000-01, 1407/AHD/2007 AY 2000-01 & 2282/AHD/2012 AY 2006-07 INDU NISSAN OXO CHEMICAL INDS., LD. VS. DCIT/ITO - 9 - 9. NOW , WE TAKE UP THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IN ITA NO.1407/ AHD/2007 FOR AY 2000-01. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWI NG GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- ALL THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN THIS APPEAL ARE MUTUAL LY EXCLUSIVE AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO EACH OTHER. 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) E RRED IN FACT AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE AO IN IN VOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 147 FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSM ENT. 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ER RED IN FACT AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF EMPLOY EES CONTRIBUTION TOWARDS PF/ESIC OF RS.15,37,391/- MADE BY THE AO U/S.36(I)(VA) OF THE ACT. 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HA S ERRED IN FACT AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASS ESSING OFFICER IN DISALLOWING THE EMPLOYERS CONTRIBUTION TOWARDS PF/ ESIC OF RS.16,02,019/- U/S.43B OF THE ACT. 4. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HA S ERRED IN FACT AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASS ESSING OFFICER IN CHARGING INTEREST U/S.234D OF THE ACT. 5. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ER RED IN FACT AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE AO IN WI THDRAWING INTEREST U/S.244A OF THE ACT. 10. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT THE CASE OF THE A SSESSEE WAS REOPENED FOR ASSESSMENT AND THE ASSESSMENT U/S.143(3) RWS 14 7 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) WA S FRAMED VIDE ORDER DATED 27/02/2006. WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT, TH E ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF EMPLOYE ES CONTRIBUTION TOWARDS PF/ESIC OF RS.15,37,391/- U/S.36(I)(VA) OF THE ACT AND ALSO ITA NOS.4518/AHD/2003 AY 2000-01, 1407/AHD/2007 AY 2000-01 & 2282/AHD/2012 AY 2006-07 INDU NISSAN OXO CHEMICAL INDS., LD. VS. DCIT/ITO - 10 - MADE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF EMPLOYE RS CONTRIBUTION TOWARDS PF/ESIC OF RS.16,02,019/- U/S.43B OF THE AC T. AGAINST THE SAID ASSESSMENT ORDER, ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFO RE THE LD.CIT(A), WHO AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS DISMISSED THE APP EAL. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A), ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPE AL BEFORE US. 11. GROUND NO.1 IS AGAINST VALIDITY OF THE REOPENIN G OF THE ASSESSMENT U/S.147 OF THE ACT. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE E SUBMITTED THAT THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT. 11.1. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD.SR.DR SUPPORTED THE O RDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMITTED THAT IN THE ORIGINA L ASSESSMENT, THESE TWO ITEMS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT, THEREFORE, THE AO WAS JUS TIFIED IN REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT. 12. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES, WE FIND THAT TH ERE IS NO ILLEGALITY IN THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT SINCE THE AO IN ORI GINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAS NOT EXAMINED THIS ISSUE AND NO ENQU IRY WAS MADE. THEREFORE, WE SEE NO REASON TO INTERFERE ON THIS IS SUE AND ASSESSEES THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS REJECTED. 13. GROUND NO.2 IS AGAINST DISALLOWANCE OF EMPLOYEE S CONTRIBUTION TOWARDS PF/ESIC. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE S UBMITTED THAT THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY THE JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT RENDERED IN THE CASE CIT VS. GUJARAT STATE ROAD ITA NOS.4518/AHD/2003 AY 2000-01, 1407/AHD/2007 AY 2000-01 & 2282/AHD/2012 AY 2006-07 INDU NISSAN OXO CHEMICAL INDS., LD. VS. DCIT/ITO - 11 - TRANSPORT CORPORATION REPORTED AT (2014) 366 ITR 170(GUJ)::(2014) 41 TAXMANN.COM 100 (GUJ.). HOWEVER, THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. AIMIL LTD. REPORTED AT (2010) 3 21 ITR 508 (DEL) HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. HENCE , THERE ARE DIVERGENT VIEWS ON THIS ISSUE. 13.1. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD.SR.DR SUPPORTED THE O RDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMITTED THAT THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION (SUPRA). THEREFORE, THIS ISSUE MAY BE DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH CO URT WOULD BE BINDING PRECEDENT. 14. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED TH E MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THERE IS NO DISPUTE WITH REGARD TO THE FACT THAT TH E HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. GUJARAT STATE ROA D TRANSPORT CORPORATION REPORTED AT (2014) 366 ITR 170(GUJ.)::( 2014) 41 TAXMANN.COM 100 (GUJ.) HAS DECIDED THIS ISSUE IN FA VOUR OF THE REVENUE. ITA NOS.4518/AHD/2003 AY 2000-01, 1407/AHD/2007 AY 2000-01 & 2282/AHD/2012 AY 2006-07 INDU NISSAN OXO CHEMICAL INDS., LD. VS. DCIT/ITO - 12 - 14.1. IN VIEW OF THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HONBLE JURIS DICTIONAL HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION(SUPRA), WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO IN TERFERE WITH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, THE SAME ARE HEREBY UPHEL D. THUS, THIS GROUND OF ASSESSEES APPEAL IS REJECTED. 15. GROUND NO.3 IS AGAINST DISALLOWANCE OF EMPLOYER S CONTRIBUTION TOWARDS PF/ESIC. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE S UBMITTED THAT THIS ISSUE IS SETTLED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IN CASE THE EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION IS MADE BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN, NO DISALLOWANCE IS CALLED FOR. 15.1. ON THE CONTRARY, LD.SR.DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AO. 16. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED TH E MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE FIND THAT THE DISALLOWANCE IS MADE ON THE BASIS THAT THE PF/ESIC CONTRIBUTION WAS NOT DEPOSITED EVEN BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF PAYMENT BUT CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE SAME WAS DEP OSITED BEFORE DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN. THIS FACT IS NOT CONTROVERTED BY THE LD.DR AND, THEREFORE THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. ITA NOS.4518/AHD/2003 AY 2000-01, 1407/AHD/2007 AY 2000-01 & 2282/AHD/2012 AY 2006-07 INDU NISSAN OXO CHEMICAL INDS., LD. VS. DCIT/ITO - 13 - 17. APROPOS TO GROUND NOS.4 AND 5, NO SUBMISSIONS W ERE MADE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, BOTH THE GROUNDS AR E DISMISSED FOR WANT OF SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. 18. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL, I.E. ITA NO.1 407/AHD/2007 IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 19. NOW , WE TAKE UP THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IN ITA NO.2282/ AHD/2012 FOR AY 2006-07. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWI NG GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1.1. THE ORDER PASSED U/S.250 ON 16.7.2012 FOR AY 2 006-07 BY CIT(A)- V, BARODA UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.23,14,03 2 IS WHOLLY ILLEGAL, UNLAWFUL AND AGAINST THE PRINCIPLES OF NAT URAL JUSTICE. 2.1. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF SUNDRY BALANCES OF R S.23,14,032 IN RESPECT OF 8 PARTIES WRITTEN OFF BY THE APPELLANT A S IRRECOVERABLE AND BUSINESS LOSS. 2.2. THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AS WELL AS IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) OUGHT NOT TO HAVE UPHELD THE DISALLOW ANCE OF SUNDRY BALANCES OF RS.23,14,032 IN RESPECT OF 8 PARTIES WR ITTEN OFF BY THE APPELLANT AS IRRECOVERABLE AND BUSINESS LOSS. IT IS, THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE DISALLOWANCE UPHE LD BY THE CIT(A) MAY KINDLY BE DELETED. 20. GROUND NOS.1.1. TO 2.2 ARE INTER-CONNECTED AND, THEREFORE, THE SAME ARE DECIDED TOGETHER. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS A RE THAT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS PICKED UP FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AND THE ASSESSMENT U/S.143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ITA NOS.4518/AHD/2003 AY 2000-01, 1407/AHD/2007 AY 2000-01 & 2282/AHD/2012 AY 2006-07 INDU NISSAN OXO CHEMICAL INDS., LD. VS. DCIT/ITO - 14 - ACT) WAS FRAMED VIDE ORDER DATED 05/12/2008. WHI LE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1,07,700/- ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS RENT PAID U/S.40A(2)(B) OF THE AC T. THE AO ALSO MADE DISALLOWANCE A SUM OF RS.63,399/- ON ACCOUNT OF CLU B EXPENDITURE, ADDITION OF RS.4,055/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNUTILIZED MOD VAT CREDIT. FURTHER, THE AO MADE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.93,080/- ON ACCOUNT OF TRAVELLING EXPENSES, DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1,72,798/- ON ACCOUNT OF BELATED PAYMENT OF PF & ESI AND DISALLOWANCE OF RS.23,14,032/- ON A CCOUNT OF SUNDRY BALANCES WRITTEN OFF. AGAINST THE SAID ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A), WHO AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL. WHILE ALLOW ING THE APPEAL, THE LD.CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.23,14,03 2/- AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL. 21. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS AS WERE MADE BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A). THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE APPELLANT HAD DEBITED THE AMOUNT IN THE AY 2006-07 IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT AS SUNDRY BALANCES WRITTEN OF F. THE AMOUNT IS DEBITED INTO PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT AS PER PROVISION S OF SECTION 37(1) OF THE ACT. THE APPELLANT IS ELIGIBLE TO GET THE DEDU CTION IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUB MITTED THAT OUT OF DISALLOWANCE OF RS.23,14,032/-, ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BREAK-UP OF THE SAME. FOR A SUM OF RS.10,50,000/- REGARDING IRBI, THE ASS ESSEE-COMPANY HAD ITA NOS.4518/AHD/2003 AY 2000-01, 1407/AHD/2007 AY 2000-01 & 2282/AHD/2012 AY 2006-07 INDU NISSAN OXO CHEMICAL INDS., LD. VS. DCIT/ITO - 15 - APPLIED TO THE IRBI FOR A TERM LOAN OF RS.10 CRORE FOR MODERNIZATION AND EXPANSION PROJECT. FOR THIS, THE COMPANY HAD TO PA Y UPFRONT FEE (COMMITMENT CHARGES) OF RS.10,50,000/-. DUE TO DIS CONTINUOUS OF THE PROJECT, THE LOAN FACILITY WAS NOT AVAILED AND COMM ITMENT CHARGES PAID BECOME IRRECOVERABLE. HENCE THE SAME AMOUNT OF RS. 10,50,000/- IS WRITTEN OFF. THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY HAS ALSO APPROAC HED TO IRBI REGARDING REFUND OF SUCH AMOUNT THROUGH LEGAL NOTIC E OF ITS ADVOCATE AND RBI. HOWEVER, IRBI HAS REJECTED THE REFUND OF SUCH CHARGES OF RS.10,50,000/-. COPIES OF SUCH LETTER OF COMMUNICA TION ARE ENCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PAPER-BOOK. COMMITMENT CHARGES PAYABLE BY A PARTY ON THE UNUSED PORTION FOR THE LOAN WHICH HAS NOT BE EN DRAWN, HAS TO BE TAKEN AS AN EXPENDITURE LAID OUT WHOLLY AND EXCLUSI VELY FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE BUSINESS AND, THEREFORE, PERMISSIBLE AS A RE VENUE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 37(1). CIRCULAR NO.2-P(XI-6)[F.NO.10/67/65 -IT(A)-I] DATED AUGUST 23, 1965. HENCE, SUCH EXPENDITURE OF RS.10, 50,000/- IS ALLOWABLE AS BUSINESS EXPENDITURE U/S.37(1) OF THE ACT. FOR A SUM OF RS.4,50,000/-, REGARDING SECURITY DEPOSIT GUJARAT S TATE FERTILIZERS & CHEMICAL LIMITED (GSFC), THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASS ESSEE SUBMITTED THAT GSFC IS THE SUPPLIER OF ASSESSEE-COMPANY. THE ASSE SSEE-COMPANY HAD PAID SECURITY DEPOSIT OF RS.4,50,000/- AGAINST C OMMITTED SUPPLY OF HYDROGEN GAS. AS ON 01.04.2002 TOTAL OUTSTANDING W ITH GSFC WAS RS.1,05,16,746/-. DUE TO FINANCIAL DIFFICULTY OF T HE ASSESSEE-COMPANY, GSFC HAS ACCEPTED ONE TIME SETTLEMENT OF PAYMENT OF RS.75,97,500/- ITA NOS.4518/AHD/2003 AY 2000-01, 1407/AHD/2007 AY 2000-01 & 2282/AHD/2012 AY 2006-07 INDU NISSAN OXO CHEMICAL INDS., LD. VS. DCIT/ITO - 16 - AGAINST OLD OUTSTANDING, WHICH SHALL BE PAYABLE IN 15 EQUAL MONTHLY INSTALLMENT. COPY OF SUCH COMMUNICATION IS ENCLOSE D AT PAPER-BOOK. SINCE GSFC HAS ACCEPTED ONE TIME SETTLEMENT SCHEME, THE ASSESSEE- COMPANY HAS WRITTEN BACK OF RS.29,19,246/- IN THE B OOKS OF ACCOUNT IN THE FY 2002-03. THEREFORE, SECURITY DEPOSIT IS ALS O NOT RECEIVABLE FROM GSFC AS PER ONE TIME SETTLEMENT SCHEME. HENCE, SUC H EXPENDITURE OF RS.4,50,000/- IS ALSO ALLOWABLE AS BUSINESS EXPENDI TURE U/S.37(1) OF THE ACT. FOR A SUM OF RS.27,000/- REGARDING ASHOK GUP TA ADVANCE, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT MR.ASHOK GUPTA WAS LEGAL ADVOCATE OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY. ASSESSEE HAD PAI D ADVANCE PAYMENT FOR LEGAL MATTERS OF THE COMPANY. THROUGH OVERSIGH T INSTEAD OF LEGAL & PROFESSIONAL HEAD COMPANY HAS DEBITED IN SUNDRY BAL ANCE WRITTEN OFF ACCOUNT. HENCE, SUCH EXPENDITURE OF RS.27,000/- IS ALSO ALLOWABLE AS BUSINESS EXPENDITURE U/S.37(1) OF THE ACT. FOR A S UM OF RS.10,000/- REGARDING OTHER DEPOSIT MODI XEROX, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY HAD MADE CONTRA CT WITH MODI XEROX LTD. FOR TAKING PHOTOCOPY OF THEIR MACHINE. FOR TH IS COMPANY HAS GIVEN DEPOSIT OF RS.10,000/-. DUE TO SHUT DOWN OF THE MO DI XEROX LTD., THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RECEIVED THE DEPOSIT AND WRITTEN O FF IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AS IRRECOVERABLE. FOR A SUM OF RS.2,16,052 /- REGARDING INGERSOLL RAND INDIA LTD., THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SU BMITTED THAT INGERSOLL RAND INDIA LTD. WAS SUPPLIER OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPAN Y. ASSESSEE- COMPANY HAD PAID ADVANCE PAYMENT FOR PURCHASE OF SP ARES AND MATERIAL. ITA NOS.4518/AHD/2003 AY 2000-01, 1407/AHD/2007 AY 2000-01 & 2282/AHD/2012 AY 2006-07 INDU NISSAN OXO CHEMICAL INDS., LD. VS. DCIT/ITO - 17 - DUE TO SHUT DOWN OF THE PLANT, COMPANY HAS NOT PURC HASE THE MATERIAL OF THE BALANCE AMOUNT. SINCE THE AMOUNT IS NOT FULLY RECOVERABLE THE BALANCE AMOUNT IS WRITTEN OFF. FOR A SUM OF RS.5,0 0,000/- REGARDING SIX STEEL PVT.LTD., THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUB MITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE- COMPANY HAS PAID ADVANCE TO SIX STEEL PVT.LTD. FOR PURCHASE OF SPARE- PARTS. HOWEVER, SINCE FURTHER AMOUNTS COULD NOT BE PAID AND HENCE THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.5,00,000/- IS WRITTEN OFF. FO R A SUM OF RS.50,000/- REGARDING PRAKALP BUILDER, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE A SSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY HAD MADE ADVANCE PAYMENT TO PR AKALP BUILDERS FOR CERTAIN REPAIRS WORK AT THE FACTORY. THE SAID WORK IS NOT COMPLETED AND AMOUNT IS IRRECOVERABLE HENCE THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.50,000/- IS WRITTEN OFF. FOR A SUM OF RS.10,978/- REGARDING R. R. CONSTRUCTION, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSE SSEE-COMPANY HAD MADE ADVANCE PAYMENT TO R.R. CONSTRUCTION FOR CERTA IN REPAIRS WORK AT THE FACTORY. THE SAID WORK IS NOT COMPLETED AND AM OUNT IS IRRECOVERABLE HENCE THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.10,978/- IS WRITTEN OFF. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IN VIEW OF THE ABOV E, ASSESSEE REQUESTS TO ALLOW THE SUNDRY BALANCE WRITTEN OFF OF RS.23,14,03 2/- U/S.37(1) OF THE ACT. 22. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD.SR.DR SUPPORTED THE ORD ERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. ITA NOS.4518/AHD/2003 AY 2000-01, 1407/AHD/2007 AY 2000-01 & 2282/AHD/2012 AY 2006-07 INDU NISSAN OXO CHEMICAL INDS., LD. VS. DCIT/ITO - 18 - 23. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED TH E MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. SO FAR THE EXPENDITURE ARE CONCERNED, THE SAME ARE RELATED TO THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS GIVEN HIS FINDI NG AS UNDER:- I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF TH E ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, I CANNOT AGREE WITH THE CONTENTIONS EXPRES SED THEREIN. THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE COMPA NY WAS REQUESTED TO FURNISH COMPLETE DETAILS WITH DOCUMENT ARY EVIDENCES TO SUBSTANTIATE THE FACTORS WHICH WERE STATED TO HA VE BEEN PRIMARY RESPONSIBLE FOR BAD DEBTS. THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO SUBMIT ANY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM OF BAD DEBTS. THERE HAS TO BE A PRIMA FACIE CASE THAT THE DEBT HAS BECO ME BAD. IT WAS DISCUSSED WITH THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE THAT I N THE ABSENCE OF DETAILS AND DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES WHICH WERE REQUIR ED TO ESTABLISH THE VERACITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES BY WHIC H THE DEBTS HAVE PURPORTEDLY BECOME BAD, IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE FOR REV ENUE TO ACCEPT THE STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE MERELY ON FACT VALUE. IT HAS BEEN HELD BY HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF DHALL ENTERPRISES AND ENGINEERS P LTD. VS. CIT 207 CTR (GUJ) 729 THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD ALSO PROVE THAT THE DEBT HAS BECOME HAD IN T HAT PARTICULAR YEAR. MERE DEBITING THE AMOUNT IS NOT SUFFICIENT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION THE CLAIM OF THE BAD DEBTS OF THE ASSESSEE IS REJECTED. 23.1. FROM THE ABOVE FINDING, IT IS EVIDENT THAT TH E LD.CIT(A) HAS FOLLOWED THE JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE HIGH COURT OF GUJ ARAT RENDERED IN THE ITA NOS.4518/AHD/2003 AY 2000-01, 1407/AHD/2007 AY 2000-01 & 2282/AHD/2012 AY 2006-07 INDU NISSAN OXO CHEMICAL INDS., LD. VS. DCIT/ITO - 19 - CASE OF DHALL ENTERPRISES AND ENGINEERS P.LTD. VS. CIT (207 CITR 729) [GUJ.]. HOWEVER, THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CAS E OF TRF LTD. VS. CIT REPORTED AT (2010) 323 ITR 397(SC) HAS HELD A S UNDER:- 4. THIS POSITION IN LAW IS WELL-SETTLED. AFTER 1ST APR IL, 1989, IT IS NOT NECESSARY FOR THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH THAT TH E DEBT, IN FACT, HAS BECOME IRRECOVERABLE. IT IS ENOUGH IF THE BAD D EBT IS WRITTEN OFF AS IRRECOVERABLE IN THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE. H OWEVER, IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE AO HAS NOT EXAMINED WHETHER THE D EBT HAS, IN FACT, BEEN WRITTEN OFF IN ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE. WHEN BAD DEBT OCCURS, THE BAD DEBT ACCOUNT IS DEBITED AND THE CUS TOMER'S ACCOUNT IS CREDITED, THUS, CLOSING THE ACCOUNT OF THE CUSTO MER. IN THE CASE OF COMPANIES, THE PROVISION IS DEDUCTED FROM SUNDRY DE BTORS. AS STATED ABOVE, THE AO HAS NOT EXAMINED WHETHER, IN F ACT, THE BAD DEBT OR PART THEREOF IS WRITTEN OFF IN THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS EXERCISE HAS NOT BEEN UNDERTAKEN BY THE AO. HE NCE, THE MATTER IS REMITTED TO THE AO FOR DE NOVO CONSIDERAT ION OF THE ABOVE-MENTIONED ASPECT ONLY AND THAT TOO ONLY TO TH E EXTENT OF THE WRITE OFF. 23.2. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE JUDGEMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT, THE REASONINGS GIVEN BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW FOR MAKIN G THE DISALLOWANCE CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. HENCE, THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. THE AO IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE DISALLOW ANCE. THUS, GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE ALLOWED. ITA NOS.4518/AHD/2003 AY 2000-01, 1407/AHD/2007 AY 2000-01 & 2282/AHD/2012 AY 2006-07 INDU NISSAN OXO CHEMICAL INDS., LD. VS. DCIT/ITO - 20 - 24. WE SUMMARIZE THE RESULT AS UNDER:- (1) ASSESSEES APPEAL IN ITA NO.4518/AHD/2003 FOR A Y 2000- 01 IS PARTLY ALLOWED. (2) ASSESSEES APPEAL IN ITA NO.1407/AHD/2007 FOR AY 2000- 01 IS PARTLY ALLOWED. (3) ASSESSEES APPEAL IN ITA NO.2282/AHD/2012 FOR AY 2006- 07 IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON FRIDAY, THE 7 TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2015 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- ( .. ) ( ) ( . ) ( G.D. AGARWAL ) ( KUL BHARAT ) VICE PRESIDENT (AZ) JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 07/ 08 /2015 6/..-, .-../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS !'#$#%! / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. %( / THE APPELLANT 2. )*%( / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 789 : / CONCERNED CIT 4. : ( ) / THE CIT(A)-IV, AHMEDABAD 5. ;< )-89 , / 893 , 7 / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. <= >. / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, *; ) //TRUE COPY// / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD
Other Referred Cases
-
Laws Referred To
-
Guide to Charitable Trusts: Formation, Benefits, and Compliance
₹0
Tax Holiday Secrets for Startups
₹0
1:1 Consultation on Business Development
₹1
Convertible Note Agreement
Mehul₹5000
CRM Implementation Plan
₹0
Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT): Comprehensive Overview and Key Changes under Finance Bill, 2026
Team Counselvise - February 06, 2026
When Global Talent Meets GST: The Huawei Secondment Ruling explained
Team Counselvise - March 09, 2026
Why Lacoste Won a 20-Year Trademark Battle Against Crocodile ?
Team Counselvise - March 10, 2026