Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (1) TMI 1640 - AT - Income TaxShort deduction of TDS - disallowances u/s 40(a) (ia) - HELD THAT:- The issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee, so far as the disallowances under section 40(a) (ia) of the Act is concerned by the decision of the Hon’ble Kolkata High Court in case of CIT vs SK Tekriwal [2012 (12) TMI 873 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] as well as by the decision of coordinate bench in case of the assessee itself for the Assessment Year 2011-12, wherein the identical issue is decided and disallowances is deleted. In view of the above ground No. 1 of the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Cross objection of the assessee on the issue that tax should have been required to be deducted by the assessee @ 10% as per the contention of the AO and @ 2% as claimed by the assessee - HELD THAT:- As stated by the ld AR that no action has been taken by the ld AO u/s 201(1) and (1A) of the Act in the impugned Assessment Year, Therefore, the ground raised by the assessee in the cross objection are hypothetical and when we have already deleted the addition in the case of the assessee, we do not find it appropriate at this stage to decide it. Assessee is at liberty to raise such question at the appropriate stage but not in this appeal where the assessee has succeeded based on the decision of the co-ordinate bench in assessee’s own case. Accordingly, cross objection of the assessee is dismissed. Addition of interest on service tax considered as prior period expenses by the assessee - HELD THAT:- CIT (A) has deleted the above disallowances holding that interest on service tax has crystallized during the year and therefore it is allowable as expenditure during the year. We confirm the finding of the ld Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) and dismiss Ground No. 2 of the appeal of the revenue. Unexplained cash credit u/s 68 - HELD THAT:- Whatever credit balance appearing in the books of account of the assessee, the assessee substantiating the same by filing a confirmation letter of the party. DR also could not show how the AO has worked out the addition of ₹ 333999/-. In view of the above facts, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of CIT (Appeal). Accordingly, we confirm his finding. Ground number 3 of The Appeal of the revenue is dismissed.
|