Nipro India Corporation (P) Ltd. v. PCIT (2023) 37 NYPTTJ 648/ (2024) 228 TTJ 733 / 236 DTR 201 (Pune)(Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Lack of proper enquiry-Lease rent-Detailed enquiry was made in the course of assessment proceedings-All details were furnished-Order is not erroneous-Revision is quashed-Repairs and maintenance-freight forwarding, miscellaneous expenses and sales promotion-Revision is justified as regards to freight forward expenses. [S. 40A(2)(b), 142(1), 194I]

Held that the  assessee furnished copies of rental contracts in soft copy format. All these rental agreements were produced for verification during the course of scrutiny proceedings and the AO made verification, but due to multiple number of contracts, the AO did not refer the same in the record. AO verified the deduction of TDS on rental expenses and found nothing adverse to the details submitted in the soft copy format and also in respect of TDS of all quarters. Principal CIT did not venture to examine the same, and simply directed the AO to conduct inquiries. Revision is not justified.  freight forwarding in the P&L a/c. In response to the said questionnaire, the assessee furnished such details. However, assessee has shown provision for freight outward charges. No details of actual payments were even submitted before the Principal CIT. A provision is made by an assessee as  an obligation to pay as a result of past event to meet the said expenditure, the assessee can make provision to settle the obligation basing on a reasonable estimation of amount.  Revision is justified to the extent of freight outward expenses.  (AY. 2015-16)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*