Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2014 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (9) TMI 1002 - AT - Income TaxTDS u/s 194A - “interest on deposit and loans - Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) - Held that:- Assessing Officer was of the opinion that as per sub clause (i) of section 194A(3), only payer a cooperative society has been provided. The nature of payee is expressly not defined in the said clause that means any payment of interest to member or non member or to cooperative society including cooperative bank etc., are all covered by the ambit of clause (i). But the Tribunal has held that if interest is being paid to Members, then TDS would not be deducted. It was not demonstrated before us that payment made by the assessee including payment to non member. Respectfully following the decision of The Bagalkot District Central Coop. Bank, Bagalkot Vs. JCIT. [2015 (1) TMI 1005 - ITAT BANGALORE] we delete the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. - Decided in favour of assessee Addition on the premise that on NPA account the assessee ought to have recognized the interest income - Held that:- The alleged interest income on NPA account is not to be credited to the P&L a/c . The addition made by the Assessing Officer is deleted. See ITO vs. M/s.Shiva Sahakari Bank Niyamitha [2012 (12) TMI 1021 - ITAT BANGALORE] - Decided in favour of assessee Disallowance of provision for bad and doubtful debt u/s 36(viia) - Held that:- In the present case, the assessee contended that the claim was made in the return, but provision was not made in the books. We directed the learned Counsel to show us the statement of income. He placed on record the claim which read as under: Less: Deductible expenditure and income to be excluded NPA provision u/s 36(1)(ix) = ₹ 6,78,133 Sub clause (ix) of section 36(1) deals with any expenditure bonafidely incurred by a company for the purpose of promoting family planning amongst its employees. It does not talk about any provision for bad and doubtful debts. Thus neither specifically disclosed in the return of income, nor had a provision made in the audited accounts. We do not find any basis for the assessee to make a claim at this stage. Therefore, there is no error in the order of the CIT (A) on this ground, this ground of appeal is rejected. Other grounds are general in nature or supporting arguments qua these three issues. - Decided against assessee. Premium paid on govt. securities amortized over a period of time holding of these securities and claimed proportionately - Held that:- From perusal of the order of the Assessing Officer, paragraph 8 to 8.5, nowhere, any reason is discernible as to how these trading stock could be considered as investment. The only reason assigned by him is the period of retaining these securities. This sole circumstance is not sufficient to treat the trading stock as investment. With regard to amortization of premium is concerned, the CIT (A) has based her order on the circular issued by the Board. The investment in Govt. security if made on premium, then premium has to be amortized over the period of time. The assessee has followed this step and claimed deduction of ₹ 1,86,000/-.Assessing Officer has erred in disallowing this claim. Considering the well reasoned order of the CIT (A), we do not find any reason to interfere in it. Accordingly appeal of the Revenue is devoid of any merit.
|