Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2020 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (1) TMI 984 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance of advances to employees towards travelling expenses - addition as expenditure has not crystallized during the year and the provision made is of contingent nature - CIT-A deleted the addition - HELD THAT:- Amount in dispute was actually paid to the employees during the year, though, the claims of the employees in respect of such expenditure were not received. However, that by itself does not make the provision for expenditure contingent in nature. The factual aspect of the issue was verified by ld. Commissioner (Appeals) and he has concluded that the expenditure has crystallized during the year. The Revenue has also not brought any material on record to show that any part of the aforesaid expenditure was claimed by the assessee in the succeeding assessment year. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any infirmity in the decision of ld. Commissioner (Appeals) on the issue. - Decided against revenue Disallowances u/s 40(a)(ia) - short deduction of tax or non deduction of tax - HELD THAT:- As per Assessing Officer’s own admission, the assessee had deducted tax at source on payment of rent, interest, contract labour charges, freight and forwarding charges at a lower rate and not at the rate prescribed under the relevant provision. Thus from the aforesaid facts it becomes clear that it is a case of short deduction of tax and not a case of non deduction of tax. Therefore, as held in the case of CIT vs. S.K. Tekriwal [2012 (12) TMI 873 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] , no disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) can be made for short deduction of tax at source. Applying the ratio of the aforesaid decision also, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under section 40(a)(ia) is unsustainable. As regards payment of sales commission, it appears from record that the payment made is towards incentive / turnover discount to authorized channel partners by way of credit note subject to achievement of certain targets. Thus, the payment made does not come strictly within the meaning of brokerage / commission. The decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of CIT vs. Intervet India P. Ltd. [2014 (4) TMI 353 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] clearly supports this view. - Decided in favour of assessee.
|