Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2013 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (11) TMI 309 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) - Deduction of TDS u/s 194C instead of u/s 194I or 194J – Held that:- It is not a case of non-deduction of tax or no-deduction of tax as per the import of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act - When tax was deducted by the assessee, even under bonafide impression under wrong provisions of TDS, the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) can not be invoked. This principle is being followed uniformly by various co-ordinate Benches and has the approval of Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. M/s. S.K. Tekriwal [2012 (12) TMI 873 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] relied on by the assessee. – Decided in favor of Assessee. Disallowance of depreciation on paintings which were part of furniture and fixtures - Assessee is in the business of production and distribution of advertising films and over and above it also provides assistance like making availability of locations, equipments, models and crew to the foreign as well as domestic companies – Held that:- It was submitted that hiring of the paintings for original shoots was unaffordable. Therefore, they have purchased and utilized the paintings which were either hung in the office or given to the producer for the original shoots, or used in various setting. Therefore, the claim was that paintings are also part of furniture – following the decision in Burnside Investments & Holdings Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT [1996 (12) TMI 117 - ITAT MADRAS-B], depreciation on paintings as part of furniture and fittings allowed - Decided in favor of Assessee. Disallowance of 25% of expenditure paid in cash on adhoc basis – Held that:- Assessee’s business requires on site expenditure for various production shootings, wardrobe expenses etc. As seen from the claims 95% of the expenditure was by way of cheques and AO allowed the entire amount as such. Therefore, disallowance of 25% of the cash expenses is not warranted. However, since expenditure is un verifiable in nature, disallowance can be restricted to 5% of the cash expenses which should meet ends of justice – Decided in favor of Assessee.
|