Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2016 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (4) TMI 1158 - AT - Income TaxUnre-conciled difference between the books of account with the AIR information- Held that:- As decided in Shri S Ganesh V/s ACIT [2010 (12) TMI 851 - ITAT, Mumbai ] in absence any record contrary to the fact, the revenue authorities could not make any addition on account of AIR information. Addition u/s 35D - expenditures pertained to increase in authorized capital and issue of share capital - Held that:- Where the assessee is a person other than a company or a co-operative society, no deduction shall be admissible under sub-section (1) unless the accounts of the assessee for the year or years in which the expenditure specified in sub-section (2) is incurred have been audited by an accountant as defined in the Explanation below sub-section (2) of section 288, and the assessee furnishes, along with his return of income for the first year in which the deduction under this section is claimed, the report of such audit in the prescribed form duly signed and verified by such accountant and setting forth such particulars as may be prescribed. After perusing the provisions of section 35(2)(iii) of the Act as above, we find that the expenses incurred for increasing the size of the authorized capital specifically mentioned in the said section to be admissible expenses. We, therefore, find no infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) and dismiss the ground raised by the revenue. This ground of revenue stands dismissed. TDS u/s 194A - non deduction of tds on payments of labour charges, painting, repairs and maintenance, electricity, godown charges etc - Held that: - As the assessee had made payment to four companies on account of repayment of finance borrowd from them by way of EMI which were inclusive of interest element and the assessee had not deducted any tax at source. Similarly, as regards the amount which represents the payments of labour charges, painting, repairs and maintenance, electricity, godown charges etc, the assessee did not deduct any tax at source and consequently, the AO during the course of scrutiny found that these payments are covered under the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and added the same to the income of the assessee. In the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT(A), the addition was confirmed on the ground that the payments were to be subjected to TDS which the assessee had failed to. Thus, the addition has rightly been made by the AO as is clear from the facts before us as the assessee had failed to deduct the tax at source which was required to be deducted under the provision of section 194A on EMIs interest element and also u/s 194C with respect to various expenses amounting to ₹ 436,958/- as stated hereinabove. Thus, the assessee had violated the provisions of the Act by not deducting the TDS at source. We, therefore, find no infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) which had rightly confirmed, the addition with respect to ₹ 9,11,863/- on account interest of loans and ₹ 4,26,138/- for various expenses
|