Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2015 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (8) TMI 50 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) - assessee had neither deducted TDS nor paid the TDS in the current year - Held that:- As before the lower authorities it was claimed that the expenditure were in the nature of reimbursement for the goods that were exported by the assessee. During the course of hearing a question was put to the Ld. A.R. and he was asked to demonstrate the crystallization of liability vis-à-vis the date of exports of goods as it was claimed that the expenditure were with respect to export of goods and to which the Ld. A.R. could not place any evidence to demonstrate that the goods were exported in the year under consideration or even at the fag end of F.Y. 2006-07. Before us the Ld., A.R. has also not placed any material on record to demonstrate that the liability crystallized during the year nor has placed any material on record to controvert the findings of Ld.CIT (A). Further the case laws relied upon by Ld. A.R. are also distinguishable on facts and in view of the aforesaid facts, we find no reason to interfere with the order of the Ld. CIT (A) in conforming disallowance - Decided against assessee. Addition on account of non deduction of TDS for the payments for purchasing calendars - Held that:- CIT (A) while upholding the disallowance has held that the contract for purchase of calendars was a works contract and therefore, the assessee was liable to deduct TDS. On the other hand before us Ld. A.R. submitted that the assessee had also purchased calendars in earlier and subsequent years and in those years, in the assessments framed u/s. 143(3), no disallowance on account of non deduction of TDS has been made by the Revenue Authorities. We however find that to support the contention of allowing the expenses in earlier and subsequent years, the relevant assessment orders are not on record. We therefore, are of the view that in the interest of justice, the issue needs to be re-examined at the end of A.O. and if no disallowance of similar expenditure has been made in earlier years and or subsequent years, the addition made by the A.O.in the year under consideration be deleted. - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes. Addition on account of prior period expenses - Held that:- CIT (A) while upholding the disallowance has noted that the assessee has not been able to prove that the liability of the expenses which has been claimed has crystallized during the year under consideration and the claim of assessee is not supported by documentary evidence and that there was no evidence to that effect was either placed before the A.O. or before Ld.CIT (A). Before us also the assessee has not placed any material on record to demonstrate the crystallization of liability in the year under consideration. Before us, Ld. A.R. has stated that the prior period expenses is below the line adjustment in the Profit and loss account and therefore it has not been claimed as expenses is contrary to the fact and is not correct because on perusing the computation of income that has been placed on record at page-2 of the paper book, it is seen that assessee has claimed expenses of ₹ 5,53,979/- as “prior period expenses crystallized during the year” - Decided against assessee. Addition u/s. 40A(3) - Held that:- Before us it is assessee’s submission that the payment was made to the representative of the foreign company, who was a foreigner and was not having Bank account and on the specific request to meet the expenses have not been controverted by the Revenue. Further the genuineness of the payment has also not been doubted by the A.O. In view of the aforesaid facts and considering the fact that the foreign currency was obtained from the foreign money changer registered with Reserve Bank of India and in view of any contrary material on record to controvert the submissions of the assessee, we are of the view that in the peculiar facts of the case the expenditure be allowed. - Decided in favour of assessee
|