|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 783 Records
-
2017 (3) TMI 1804 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM
Levy of fee u/s 234E - late filing of quarterly e-TDS return u/s 200(3) - HELD THAT:- After analysis of the provisions of section 200A & 234E of the Act and further by relied upon certain judicial precedents including the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Alom Extrusions Ltd. (2009 (11) TMI 27 - SUPREME COURT) and Rajeender Kumar Vs. CIT (2013 (7) TMI 454 - DELHI HIGH COURT) held that though sub-clause (c) inserted from 1.6.2015, it being declaratory and creative in nature, can be applied retrospectively, accordingly, the provisions of section 234E of the Act being the machinery section is applicable for levy of late fee for belated filing of TDS statements, even before insertion of sub-clause (c) in section 200A of the Act, by the Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 1.6.2015.
Respectfully following the decision of coordinate bench, in the case of M/s. Chillapalli Exports Pvt. Ltd. ITO (TDS), TDS Ward-1, Guntur (2017 (2) TMI 857 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM), we direct the A.O. to delete additions made towards late filing fee payable u/s 234E of the Act for belated filing of TDS statements u/s 200(3) of the Act.
-
2017 (3) TMI 1802 - ITAT HYDERABAD
Deduction u/s. 80P - HELD THAT:- Since in this case even though assessee is not involved in trading but is engaged in contract works, which included material being supplied by the Government, assessee is eligible for claim u/s. 80P(2)(a)(vi). No other contrary judgment has been brought to my notice. Respectfully following the principles laid down in M/s. Uralungal Labour Contract [2009 (10) TMI 890 - KERALA HIGH COURT] direct the AO to allow the deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(vi), as being allowed in earlier years also. Grounds are allowed.
-
2017 (3) TMI 1801 - ITAT PUNE
Condonation of delay filling Rectification application - whether the assessee has a good case of condonation of delay in filing the appeal late by about 1305 days? - HELD THAT:- Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Improvement Trust, Ludhiana Vs. Ujagar Singh & Ors [2010 (6) TMI 660 - SUPREME COURT] had considered the case of delay of 90 days and had held that in case where the delay was not huge, the same could have been condoned without putting the respondent to harm or prejudices. Applying the above principle, we dismiss the condonation application filed by assessee. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed on preliminary issue itself.
When there is any mistake apparent from record, the same may be rectified, when it is either pointed out by the assessee or comes to the knowledge of the authority concerned. In the present set of facts, the assessee had filed an application for rectification under Section 154 of the Act before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) against the additions .
The first addition was made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of Page No.122B of Bundle No.A-9 of Party No.A-12 relating to Assessment Year 2000 - 01. The said addition was deleted by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) vide order passed under Section 154 of the Act.
The second addition which was made the assessee had not filed the return of income for the said Assessment Year and only on the basis of trial balance net profit was worked out on ₹ 3,39,073/-. The assessee claims that the said net profit is subsumed in the profit of ₹ 16,20,674/- and once the same is deleted then no other addition is to be made.
Second plea raised by the assessee was that the perusal of the document itself would reflect that it is part of trial balance and the said figure is shown as the opening balance as on 01.04.2000. It was also stressed by the Learned Authorised Representative for the assessee that the documents on the basis of which the said addition was not made available to the assessee, though, repeated requests were made to the Assessing Officer in this regard.
The scope of rectification is limited to correct any mistake which is apparent from the record. The submissions made by the assessee do not point out the said apparent mistake which could be rectified under Section 154 of the Act. We find no merit in the various contentions made by the assessee in this regard, since the scope of rectification under Section 154 of the Act is very limited. Accordingly, we dismiss the claim of the assessee. Upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), we dismiss the appeal raised by the assessee.
-
2017 (3) TMI 1800 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Recovery proceedings - sale proceeds of the membership rights of the defaulting members - Petitioner's claim that the sale proceeds of the membership rights of the defaulting members, is subject to their prior rights in view of the income tax dues payable to it by Respondent No.2 (Mr. Khona and Mr. Dalal) and it is the case of the Respondent No.1 Exchange that the aforesaid amounts are in the nature of ex-gratia payments, being made to defaulting members - HELD THAT:- Provisions to Section 226(3) would not apply as it is neither a debt due from Respondent No.1 Exchange to the defaulting members (Mr. Khona and Mr. Dalal) nor according to them, is the Respondent No.1 Exchange holding the money on account of Respondent No.2 (Mr. Khona and Mr. Dalal). As further submitted that the payments are being made to the defaulting members, consequent to a resolution dated 13th October, 1999. This very resolution dated 13th October, 1999, was subject of consideration by the Apex Court in Bombay Stock Exchange v/s. B. S. Kandalgaonkar & Others [2014 (10) TMI 368 - SUPREME COURT] and the said amounts payable under the resolution, were held to be not attachable by the Income Tax Department.
n the above view, interim relief in terms of prayer clause (c), in respect of which, all parties are adidem.
Respondents are directed to deposit the amounts of ₹ 1,60,58,253 and ₹ 1,60,46,276/with the Prothonotary and Senior Master, High Court, Bombay, within a period of two weeks from today.
-
2017 (3) TMI 1799 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Deduction u/s 80P - Whether assessee is a cooperative credit society and is not a bank? - HELD THAT:- It is an agreed position between the parties that the issue arising herein stands concluded against the Revenue and in favour of the respondent assessee for the subject assessment years by the decision of this Court in M/s. Quepem Urban Cooperative Credit Society Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, [2015 (6) TMI 573 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] and Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Goa Vs. Goa PWD Staff Coop. Credit Society Ltd. [2015 (12) TMI 1575 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] - No substantial question of law
-
2017 (3) TMI 1797 - ITAT MUMBAI
Gain on cancellation of forward foreign exchange contracts - Characterization of income capital gain OR Income from Other sources - HELD THAT:- As could be seen from the material on record, the only issue in dispute between the parties is in relation to the status of gain derived from the forward foreign exchange contract, whether to be assessed as capital gain or income from other sources. Undisputedly, this is a recurring dispute between the assessee and the department from earlier assessment years and in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2001-02 [2012 (12) TMI 1195 - ITAT MUMBAI] has held that income arising from forward foreign exchange contract is assessable under the head “Capital gains”.
Hence we hold that the gains arising from forward foreign exchange contract are assessable under the head “Capital gain” and not as “Income from other sources”. Hence, grounds raised by the department on this issue are dismissed.
-
2017 (3) TMI 1795 - ITAT INDORE
Deduction u/s 80P - interest income from fixed deposits with the Banks and interest from Savings bank Account - HELD THAT:- As relying on own case [2012 (2) TMI 689 - ITAT INDORE] and MALAD SAHAKARI BANK LTD., MUMBAI [2011 (9) TMI 1195 - ITAT MUMBAI] assessee was eligible for deduction under section 80-P(2)(a)(i) of the Act on the interest income from fixed deposits with the Banks and interest from Savings bank Account. We, therefore, confirm the order of the learned CIT(A) and dismiss the grounds of appeal of the Revenue.
-
2017 (3) TMI 1794 - ITAT COCHIN
Maintainability of appeal - non-prosecution of the case - HELD THAT:- The assessee are not interested in prosecuting the case - the appeals filed by the assessee dismissed for non-prosecution.
-
2017 (3) TMI 1793 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Refusal of registration sought u/s 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 - general public utility - HELD THAT:- Learned Departmental Representative invites our attention to another coordinate bench decision in Panoli Industrial Infrastructure Projects Ltd. vs. CIT [2016 (10) TMI 363 - ITAT AHMEDABAD] denying Section 12AA registration on the very analogy that the real benefits of the charitable activity in question were intended for the benefit of members only.
The assessee’s object clauses which form the foundation of Section 12AA registration claim are not on a similar footing as facts of the instant case wherein there is clear cut stipulation that assessee’s income before or after dissolution would in no manner devolve upon its member.
It is accordingly concluded that the assessee’s principal object seeking to promote and develop, plan, survey, design , study, conceive, evaluate and to carry out all steps, process, techniques and method for setting and developing up of all types of infrastructure facilities comes well within general public utility limb of Section 2(15) of the Act.
Learned DIT(E), Ahmedabad is directed to grant it Section 12AA registration in question - appeal of asssessee allowed.
-
2017 (3) TMI 1792 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - notice u/s 148 was issued by ITO-IV(1), Lucknow who had no jurisdiction in the matter and after transfer of case, ITO-V(2) who had jurisdiction in the matter, proceeded to make assessment without issuing notice u/s 148 which was mandatory, being a jurisdictional step - HELD THAT:- The curability permitted u/s 292BB is with regard to service of notice upon Assessee and not with regard to competence of authority who has issued notice.
A similar question was considered in Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujarat-II Vs. Kurban Hussain Ibrahimji Mithiborwala [1971 (9) TMI 9 - SUPREME COURT] and Court said "Income Tax Officer's jurisdiction to reopen an assessment under Section 34 depends upon issuance of a valid notice. If notice issued by him is invalid for any reason, entire proceedings taken by him would become void for want of jurisdiction." Court then held that notice was invalid as A.O. had no jurisdiction to revise assessment then it cannot be treated to be mere irregularity so as to validate proceedings of assessment if the Assessee had participated.
Similar is the view taken by a Full Bench of this Court in Laxmi Narain Anand Prakash Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Lucknow [1980 (1) TMI 212 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT]
The contention of learned counsel for Revenue that participation of Assessee before Jurisdictional A.O. would operate as acquiescence or waiver and will not invalidate proceedings is thoroughly misconceived.
In Abdul Qayume Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [1989 (12) TMI 37 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT]
Court said "an admission or an acquiescence cannot be a foundation for assessment where the income is returned under an erroneous impression or misconception of law.
It is well settled that a jurisdiction can neither be waived nor created even by consent and even by submitting to jurisdiction, an Assessee cannot confer upon any jurisdictional authority, something which he lacked inherently. Even if, it can be said that Assessee submitted to jurisdiction of A.O., law is that Assessee cannot confer jurisdiction on an authority who did not have the same and we find support from Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Hari Raj Swarup and sons [1982 (3) TMI 42 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT]
In Mir Iqbal Husain Vs. State of U.P. [1963 (10) TMI 33 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] it was held that requirement of valid notice cannot be waived. The mere fact that Assessee filed Return of Income pursuant to invalid notice would not render notice valid or validate subsequent proceedings which are vitiated in law for want of valid notice.
In Raza Textile Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer, Rampur [1972 (9) TMI 15 - SUPREME COURT] Court said that it is incomprehensible to think that a quasi-judicial authority like A.O. can erroneously decide a jurisdictional fact and thereafter proceed to impose a levy on a citizen.
If an order is passed by a judicial or quasi-judicial authority having no jurisdiction, it is an obligation of Appellate Court to rectify the error and set aside order passed by authority or forum having no jurisdiction. This is what was held in State of Gujarat Vs. Rajesh Kumar Chimanlal Barot and another [2010 (5) TMI 600 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] - Decided against Revenue and in favour of Assessee.
-
2017 (3) TMI 1791 - ITAT JAIPUR
Adjournment application - repeated adjournment application on the ground of unavailability of the AR on account of his medical condition - HELD THAT:- From perusal of the records, it is noted that the appeal has been filed on 27.02.2015 and after removing the defects, it was list for hearing on 1st January, 2016. Thereafter, at the request of the AR, the matter was adjourned to 09.03.2016, 28.04.2016, 27.05.2016, 08.07.2016, 11.08.2016, 15.11.2016, and has now come up for hearing today. In each of the adjournment applications filed by the AR, it is noted that the reason for seeking adjournment has been stated to be unavailability of the AR on account of his medical condition. However, there is nothing on record in terms of affidavit and/medical certificate in support of the adjournment petitions which have been filed, from time to time.
There is no material which is available on record to decide the matter on merit. In light of that, it seems that adequate opportunity has been granted to the assessee from time to time, however the matter has not been represented before the Bench and it seems that no useful purposes would be served in adjourning the matter any further. Following the decision of CIT vs. Multiplan India (P) Ltd., [1991 (5) TMI 120 - ITAT DELHI-D] and Estate of Late Tukhoji Rao Holkar vs. CWT [1996 (3) TMI 92 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT] the adjournment application is rejected and the appeal of the assessee is dismissed in limine
-
2017 (3) TMI 1790 - ITAT PUNE
Deduction u/s 80IB(10) - proof of construction - permission given by the PMC for construction of proposed building at the site of the assessee - whether assessee had received the permission to construct the building prior to 01.10.1998 ? - HELD THAT:- Where the assessee has got permission on 19.12.1998 to construct the building, then the assessee has fulfilled the basic conditions laid down in section 80IB(10) of the Act in order to avail the benefits of the said section; since the deduction under the said section is available to such projects which commenced construction on or after 01.10.1998. The previous commencement certificates were in respect of layout plan of the said project and are at variance with the commencement certificate issued for construction of building and in such circumstances, it could not be held that the assessee had received the permission to construct the building prior to 01.10.1998 and hence, was not eligible for claiming the deduction under section 80IB(10). We find no merit in the orders of authorities below in this regard.
We hold that where the permission has been granted to the assessee for the first time for constructing the building vide commencement certificate No.2098, dated 19.12.1998, the assessee fulfills the basic conditions of starting the project on or after 01.10.1998 and hence, is eligible to claim the deduction u/s 80IB(10)
Assessee had incurred certain expenses which are on account of several activities including payment of land development charges, Architect fees, MSEB, bore well drilling charges, designing and development of press advertisements and the advertisement charges, designing of brochures and also purchase of GI sheets, bricks, water storage tanks, etc and also invitation cards for Bhoomi Puja - Activity to construct would only happen once the permission is received by the assessee i.e. building plan commencement certificate. The authorities below have also referred to certain communication of the Architect that the development had started prior to 1998 and the site visits on 01.08.1997 and 25.08.1997 which as per authorities below is the factum of commencement in addition to excavation and construction of roads prior to 01.04.1998. The above said stand of authorities below gets demolished by the revised layout plan issued by the PMC on 24.06.1998 which admittedly, is an approval for layout of the land. The said commencement certificate clearly mentions that it is valid for a period of one year, under which all the terms and conditions mentioned in the commencement certificate have to be complied with by the assessee. It also mentions that earlier sanction granted if any, is cancelled meaning thereby that even if certain sanction was given by the PMC, the same stands cancelled by the revised layout commencement certificate issued on 24.06.1998. Accordingly, the stand of authorities below in respect of activities carried on prior to that date does not stand. We have already held in the paras hereinabove that there is distinction between the layout sanction and the building sanctioned plan and in the case of assessee, commencement certificate dated 19.12.1998 is the sanction granted by the local authority to construct the building and the date of start of project is dated 19.12.1998, which falls within pre-conditions laid down in section 80IB(10) of the Act and hence, the assessee is eligible to claim the deduction.
Whether the assessee has deviated from the sanctioned building plans and had constructed the flats having area more than 1500 sq.ft. or change the usage of sanctioned flats from the residential to commercial? - Assessee is entitled to claim the deduction in respect of such flats which fulfill the conditions laid down in section 80IB(10) of the Act i.e. having residential use and having total area of 1500 sq.ft. within boundaries of the flats. Merely because the assessee has merged flats but in case the area of merged flats is within prescribed limit of 1500 sq.ft., then such flats are eligible for deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act and in this regard of merger of flats, there is mechanism provided by the municipal authorities, wherein suitable fines and fees are levied after the assessee submits the record plans.
Even if the assessee has made extra construction than the approval received from the local authority, then such extra construction has to be looked into by the municipal authorities and the Income Tax authorities are to ensure that the conditions laid down under section 80IB(10) of the Act are fulfilled in respect of such flats for which the said deduction is to be allowed. Where the area of flat is more than 1500 sq.ft., the assessee is not entitled to the deduction, having not fulfilled the conditions of said section. In this regard, we place reliance on the ratio laid down in Bangalore Bench of Tribunal in ITO Vs. Mahaveer Calyx [2012 (11) TMI 508 - ITAT BANGALORE]
Usage i.e. extra commercial usage as against sanctioned commercial usage - Again this facet is to be looked into by State Authorities. The assessee before us has not claimed deduction on account of units of commercial usage.
Area of flat - As per the provisions of the Statute in the relevant years, it is the area within four boundaries which has to be taken into consideration and if the same is up to 1500 sq.ft., then the assessee is entitled to avail the deduction, in case it exceeds 1500 sq.ft., then the deduction to such units can be denied. The denial of deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act is unit-wise. In other words, the assessee is entitled to prorata deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act in respect of all those residential units which fulfill the conditions laid down in the section of having built up area of 1500 sq.ft. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer is directed to verify the claim of assessee through the DVO and after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The Assessing Officer is also directed to allow prorata deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act to the assessee in respect of such units which fulfill the conditions. All the other units which do not fulfill the conditions of area of 1500 sq.ft. are not entitled to the said deduction. We hold so. The tenements in B1 and C3 building admittedly, have not fulfilled the conditions and are not eligible for deduction. Accordingly, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee vis-à-vis deduction claimed under section 80IB(10) of the Act are partly allowed.
-
2017 (3) TMI 1789 - ITAT DELHI
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - non- independent application of mind - information has been received from the DIT (Investigation) New Delhi - HELD THAT:- There were duplicate entries (i.e. the same entries were repeated) at item numbers 20, 22, 24, 26, 28 and 30. In fact the A.O. acknowledges this fact that the same entry was recorded more than once, in the information provided by the DDIT, at para 8.1 and 8.2 of the assessment order. This demonstrates that the A.O. has not gone through the information received from the Investigation Wing. A basic verification would have revealed the duplication of entries. He simply based his reasons on this information without application of mind or verification.
CIT in the case on hand has not recorded his satisfaction and accorded approval as required under the provisions of S.151(2) of the Act. He has simply recorded that he has granted approval in a mechanical manner, without application of mind. Had he recorded the reasons he would have realized that there were duplicate entries and repetitions.
Under such circumstances the reopening is held to be bad in law.
As in M/S N.C. CABLES LTD. [2017 (1) TMI 1036 - DELHI HIGH COURT] held that “the mere appending of the expression ‘approved’ say nothing. Applying the propositions laid down in these case laws to the facts of the case we have to necessarily quash the assessments on the ground that re-opening is bad in law. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2017 (3) TMI 1788 - ITAT MUMBAI
Disallowance being expenditure on repairs to plant and machinery - HELD THAT:- We find that almost identical issue was adjudicated in ESCORTS LTD. VERSUS INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER [2000 (9) TMI 220 - ITAT DELHI-E] wherein the expenses in dispute was .005% of total turnover of the assessee which was allowed of errors and omission being period expenses was allowed.
Considering the decision of co-ordinate bench of Delhi Tribunal on identical fact, wherein the assessee was also a Public Sector Undertaking, we respectfully following the decision of co-ordinate bench allowed the ground of appeal raised by the assessee. Appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2017 (3) TMI 1787 - ITAT BANGALORE
Deduction u/s 10A - computation of claim - HELD THAT:- Assessee invited our attention that this issue is squarely covered by the judgment of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Tata Elxsi [2011 (8) TMI 782 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] in which it has been held that once item is included in the export turnover, it should also be included in the total turnover. Following the judgment of the Jurisdictional High Court, we restore the issue to the file of the AO with the direction to readjudicate the deduction under section 10A of the Act in the light of judgment in the case of Tata Elxsi.
Nature of expenditure - payment for club membership fee - revenue or capital expenditure - HELD THAT:- We find force in the contention of the assessee that since the assessee has obtained the club membership for commercial expediency; the same is to be allowed as business expenditure. We therefore find no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A). Accordingly, we confirm the same.
Foreign exchange fluctuation in operating margin - whether the foreign exchange fluctuation was included as operating margin in the case of comparables ? - HELD THAT:- We are of the view that similar treatment should be given in the case of tested parties and the comparables. If the foreign exchange fluctuation is included in the case of comparables, it should also be included in the case of tested parties. Therefore, we are of the view that these facts should be verified by the AO. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restore the matter to the file of the AO to verify whether foreign exchange fluctuation was included in the operating margin of the comparables. If the assessee succeeds in establishing that foreign exchange fluctuation was included in the operating margin of the comparables, the same may be included in the case of tested parties also.
TP Adjustment - comparable selection - HELD THAT:- Assessee provides information technology services and IT enabled services to its Associated Enterprises thus companies functionally dissimilar with that of assessee need to be deselected from final list and also who fails RPT filter approved .
-
2017 (3) TMI 1785 - ITAT BANGALORE
Deduction u/s 10A - exclude the expenditure incurred in foreign currency from both export turnover as well as total turnover - HELD THAT:- Now the issue is covered against the revenue by the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Tata Elxsi [2011 (8) TMI 782 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] held that the same is required to be reduced from export turnover as well as total turnover. Respectfully following the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court we direct that expenses incurred in foreign exchange towards insurance, travelling and communication are to be reduced both from export turnover as well as total turnover.
TP Adjustment - Comparable selection - HELD THAT:- Assessee is into software development services thus companies functionally dissimilar with that of assessee need to be deselected from final list.
-
2017 (3) TMI 1784 - ITAT CHENNAI
Both the Miscellaneous Petitions from the assessee stating that the assessee prefers to withdraw these two Miscellaneous Petitions. Ld. D.R did not object to the submissions of the Ld. A.R. Accordingly, these two Miscellaneous Petitions filed by the assessee are dismissed as withdrawn.
-
2017 (3) TMI 1783 - ITAT PANAJI
Penalty u/s 271AAB - no search in the case of the assessee firm - HELD THAT:- Opening words are “penalty where search has been initiated” a perusal of the provisions under Section 271AAB also talks of the assessee declaring any undisclosed income in the course of the search in the statement under section 132(4). Admittedly in the present case, that is in the case of the assessee firm in appeal there has been no search.
Search admittedly is on the residence of one of the partner of the assessee firm. A perusal of the order of the learned CIT(A) also clearly shows that the learned CIT(A) has cancelled the penalty on the ground that there was no search in the case of the assessee firm. The revenue has not been able to point out as to how this finding of the learned CIT(A) is erroneous. This being so the finding of the learned CIT(A) on this issue stands confirmed. - Decided against revenue
-
2017 (3) TMI 1782 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Rectification of mistake - deduction u/s 80IA on the basis of sale price of electricity - HELD THAT:- Co-ordinate Bench vide its order for Asst. Year 2005-06 to 2007-08 in assessee’s own case allowed assessee’s claim of deduction u/s 80IA of the Act by taking the sale price at ₹ 4.55 per unit. However, in para 24 of the Tribunal’s order dated [2016 (1) TMI 125 - ITAT AHMEDABAD] it was wrongly mentioned that ground of assessee is partly allowed and no interference is called for in the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(A).
We are of the opinion that in these peculiar facts an apparent mistake has cropped up in the Tribunal’s order dated 19.11.15 giving rise to a contradictory view occurring in para 23 and para 24 of the order. We thus recall our finding mentioned in para 24 of the order dated 19.11.15 and replace it with the following paragraph :-
“Respectfully following the ratio of decision taken by the Co-ordinate Bench in assessee’s own case, we set aside the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(A) and allow the ground of assessee.”
Miscellaneous application filed by the assessee is allowed
-
2017 (3) TMI 1781 - ITAT AMRITSAR
Provision for bad and doubtful debts on standards assets - HELD THAT:- This issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the order of the Tribunal in the case of the assessee itself for Asst. Year: 2008-09. AR submitted that the case of the assessee was also covered by the decision of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of State Bank of Patiala Vs. CIT [2004 (5) TMI 12 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT]
Disallowance of premium paid to LIC for covering leave encashment of its employees - AR submitted that the premium paid by assessee was deductible u/s 37 (1) of the Act as the assessee had paid the premium to insure its liability for payment of leave encashment to its employees at the time of their retirement or death - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) while confirming the disallowance has not considered the claim of the assessee u/s 37(1) of the Act and has confirmed the addition by holding that the provisions of section 43B(f) were applicable to the assessee. However, the claim of the assessee in its written submissions is that assessee had not created the provisions and in fact had made the payment and therefore the provisions of section 43B(f) of the Act were not applicable, it was also required that Ld. CIT(A) had confirmed the disallowance u/s 43B (f) without affording opportunity to the Assessee. Therefore, we deem it appropriate to remit this issue to the office of Ld. CIT(A) who should examine the claim of the assessee u/s 37(1) of the Act as the Assessing Officer had made the disallowance u/s 37(1) of the Act. CIT(A) should also hear the assessee on the applicability of provisions of section 43B(f) of the Act. In view of the above, the appeals filed by assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
........
|
