Case Law Details
Samrat Builders Vs DCIT (ITAT Ahmedabad)
Conclusion: Mere fact that assesse had separately debited service tax in it profit and loss account and not credited the same in its profit and loss account could not be the reason or basis for stating that assessee had not credited these receipts in its books as it was to be presumed included in the sales price.
Held: The solitary issue involved in the appeal related to addition made of service tax paid by assessee during the year amounting to Rs. 1,27,31,534/- . The addition being made for the reason that though the assessee had separately claimed the payment of service tax as expenses it had not credited service tax receipts from the customer in the profit and loss account for the year. It was held that mere fact that assesse had separately debited service tax in it profit and loss account and not credited the same in its profit and loss account could not be the reason or basis for stating that assessee had not credited these receipts in its books. As per the valuation Rules also relating to Service tax, if Service Tax was not separately collected in the bills it was to be presumed as included in the sales price. This fact had been confirmed in the case of the assessee by CIT(A) in the succeeding year after going through all relevant documents .There being no other material with the Revenue for arriving at a finding that the assessee had not disclosed this component of service tax, therefore, the basis of addition made by the Revenue to be very far-fetched and illogical.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT AHMEDABAD
The present appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-, Gandhinagar Ahmedabad, (in short referred to as CIT(A)), dated 08-01-2018, u/s. 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) pertaining to Assessment Year (A.Y) 2014-2015.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
