Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2022 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (12) TMI 242 - AT - Income TaxDeduction u/s. 36(1)(viia) - disallowance pertaining to bad and doubtful debts - HELD THAT:- We find no force in the Revenue's supportive arguments as there is no material in principle which has been rejected by the AO while dealing with the assessee's crystallization plea. That being the case, we allow the assessee's impugned claim in principle and direct the Assessing Officer to examine its supportive evidence of crystallization of the corresponding expenditure items in the relevant previous year by quoting CIT Vs. Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd [2016 (9) TMI 110 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] and case law CIT vs. Adani Enterprises Ltd. [2016 (7) TMI 1250 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] also holds that such prior period expenditure items ought not to be disallowed where the taxpayer concerned is assessed at the same rate all along. The second substantive ground is accepted for statistical purposes in foregoing terms. Disallowance of interest paid on TDS on the ground that the same is 'penal' in nature - HELD THAT:- We find no merit in its arguments in light of Lachmandas Mathuradas [1997 (12) TMI 16 - SUPREME COURT], Rungta Mines Ltd. [2018 (10) TMI 672 - ITAT KOLKATA] and M/s. M.L. Reality [2021 (9) TMI 877 - ITAT MUMBAI] holding such interest payment on delayed remittances of tax items as an allowable revenue expenditure u/s. 37 of the Act. The impugned disallowance accordingly stands deleted. Disallowing its claim of expenditure regarding education, secondary and higher education cess - HELD THAT:- Learned counsel fails to dispute that the legislature has amended section 40(h) of the Act vide Finance Act 2022 w.e.f. 01.04.2005 that such education cess is not an allowable expenditure item. We take note thereof to hold that the impugned claim of preceding cess(es) items is not allowable in law. The same stands rejected. Invoking section 115JB MAT computation on a public sector banking company - HELD THAT:- Both the parties are fair enough in not pinpointing any distinction on facts or law qua the instant issue of applicability of section 115JB in assessee's case. There is further hardly any dispute as we have restored the assessee's foregoing second substantive grievance of prior period expenditure back to the AO. Faced with the situation, we set aside the instant MAT issue as well back to the Assessing Officer for his afresh adjudication in light of CIT(A)'s findings in the preceding assessment year (s) 2013-14 and 2014-15, as the case may be, as per law. Claim of loss on valuation of Held to Maturity (HTM) securities - allowable revenue item - HELD THAT:- Revenue is fair enough in not pinpointing any distinction on facts or law before us. We adopt judicial consistency to uphold the CIT(A)'s findings allowing the impugned loss on sale of "Held to Maturity (HTM)" securities to the assessee. Revenue's sole substantive grievance as well as main appeal stand rejected accordingly.
|