Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2012 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (12) TMI 238 - ITAT BANGALOREDisallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) - TDS u/s 194H - Assessee has paid brokerage and sales promotion expenses without deducted TDS – Held that:- Following the decision in case of Merilyn Shipping & Transports (2012 (4) TMI 290 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM) held that disallowance u/s 40a(ia) can be made only when the amount is payable as on 31st March of every year and it cannot be invoked to disallow expenditure which had actually been paid during the previous year without TDS. To verify the same fact issue remand back to AO Revenue or capital expenditure - Refurbishment of showrooms – debited to Renovation and repairs – AO argued that spent for new show-rooms and the payments include interior and exterior works, furniture, Mannequins, racks, light fittings, partitions etc., which is going to provide the assessee benefit of enduring nature. Whether setting up a new showroom would amount to starting a new business or is it only an expansion of the existing business - Assessee is already in the business of retail trading of Reebok footwear and shoes – In two different locations the assessee would be carrying on the business of retail trading in Reebok shoes and footwear – Held that:- As the goods in which the assessee is trading are one and the same, merely by opening new showrooms it cannot be said that the assessee is starting a new business. Whether the expenditure on civil and electrical works incurred in leasehold premises would fall in the capital field – Held that:- Lease is for a period of 4 years only and the assessee was to pay for lease rental as well interest-free security deposit for the lease and also that the assessee is required to incur the expenditure for interior and exterior works for carrying on the business as per 'brand' specifications. Therefore, it cannot be said that the assessee is deriving an enduring benefit nor can it be said that any capital asset has been created in favour of the assessee. Expenditure incurred is revenue in nature. In favour of assessee Expenditure on Keyman insurance policy - Partners of firm - AO held that as these partners are not employees of the firm – Held that:- As the partners are 'connected with the business of the assessee' and therefore are covered by the second part of the meaning given in the Explanation to Sec.10(10D). the premium paid on the Keyman insurance policies taken by the assessee on the life of its partners is allowable as expenditure. In favour of assessee
|