Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2015 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (10) TMI 19 - AT - Income TaxInterest due to the assessee u/s. 244A denied - time taken for curing the defects in TDS certificate - Held that:- The undisputed facts are that the TDS certificates were submitted with the return of income. It is also a fact that the TDS certificate has been issued by Reserve Bank of India and various other Government agencies therefore any defect in the TDS certificate cannot be attributed to the assessee. Further, the tax deducted at source by the deductors have been deposited to the credit of the Government, therefore assessee cannot be denied interest u/s. 244A of the Act when the tax was deducted and deposited in the exchequer in time, section 244A(2) is not attracted. We draw support from the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Larsen & Toubro (2010 (6) TMI 54 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ). We, accordingly set aside the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO to allow the interest for the period 1.4.1991 to 31.3.1998.- Decided in favour of assessee. Disallowance of payment of MICR charges - non deduction of tds u/s. 194J - whether the bank was not required to deduct tax from the payments made to SBI and therefore provisions of Sec. 40(a)(ia) are not attracted? - CIT(A) allowed the claim - Held that:- We have carefully perused the orders of the authorities below. We have also the benefit of the order made u/s. 201 (1) & 201(1A) of the Act dated 23.3.2011. We have also the benefit of the copy of notification No. 56/2012(F.No. 275/53/2012-IT(B) dated 31.3.2012 wherein the CBDT has notified that no deduction of tax under Chapter XVII of the said Act shall be made on the payments being clearance charges (MICR charges). In our considered opinion, since it has been admittedly proved that the recipient of the MICR charges i.e. State Bank of India has included the sum while making tax payment by it. The ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Coco Cola (2007 (8) TMI 12 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) squarely apply. Considering the facts in totality as mentioned above, we decline to interfere with the findings of the Ld. CIT(A). - Decided in favour of assessee. Disallowance u/s 14A - CIT(A) confirming the expenditure u/s. 14A being the amount of interest allocated on a proportionate basis - Held that:- Undoubtedly, in the first round of litigation, the Tribunal has clearly held that Rule 8D is not applicable for the year under consideration, therefore, directed the AO to make some reasonable disallowance. However, we find that the AO has once again computed the disallowance as per the formula given in Rule 8D. We also find that the interest free funds available with the assessee is ₹ 1357.84 crores whereas average investments in assets earning tax free income is at ₹ 815.76 crores. This clearly shows that the assessee is having sufficient interest free funds for making the investments. The ratio laid down in the case of Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd [2009 (1) TMI 4 - HIGH COURT BOMBAY] squarely apply which has been followed by in the case of HDFC Bank (2014 (8) TMI 119 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT) which has been followed by the Tribunal in assessee's own case in A.Y. 2002-03 to 2004- 05. Thus we direct the AO to delete the impugned disallowance made u/s. 14A of the Act.- Decided in favour of assessee. Deduction u/s. 36(1)(viia) - CIT(A) allowed claim - Held that:- The assessee had not made any provision in the books of account for the assessment year 1985-86 by making supplementary entries and by revising its balance-sheet. The provision had been made in the books of the subsequent year. Therefore since the assessee had made a provision for bad and doubtful debts, its claim for deduction under section 36(1)(viia) had to be restricted to that amount. See State Bank of Patiala case [2004 (5) TMI 12 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA High Court] - we set aside the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) and confirm that of the AO - Decided against assessee. Provisions of Sec. 115JB are not applicable in the case of the assessee and accordingly ground taken by the assessee is allowed.
|