|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 871 Records
-
2012 (5) TMI 756
Estimate of net profit above 5% of the purchases made by the assessee is to be adopted, we direct the Assessing Officer to estimate net profit at 5% of the purchases or stock put for sale during the year subject to the assessed income not less than returned income. The order of the CIT(A), to this extent, is modified accordingly.
-
2012 (5) TMI 755
Issues involved: Assessment of gross profit rate, treatment of unexplained cash credits, disallowance of depreciation.
Assessment of gross profit rate:
The appellant, an individual running a wine shop, challenged the estimation of sales by the assessing officer based on a gross profit rate of 20%. The appellant argued for a net profit rate of 3% citing a previous case. The Department, however, highlighted the prevalent business practices in the liquor trade where sales prices exceed the MRP. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to estimate net profit at 5% of purchases or stock put for sale, ensuring the assessed income is not less than the returned income.
Treatment of unexplained cash credits:
The appellant failed to prove the source of unsecured loans from foster parents, leading to additions under section 68 of the Act. Despite submitting a document signed by relatives, the genuineness of the transactions was doubted. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the document appeared fabricated and lacked essential details, resulting in the dismissal of this ground of appeal.
Disallowance of depreciation:
Regarding the disallowance of depreciation on a car, the CIT(A) reduced the claim by 1/4th due to potential personal use. The Tribunal affirmed this decision, recognizing the possibility of personal usage and dismissing the appellant's appeal on this ground.
In conclusion, the Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, adjusting the assessment of gross profit rate while upholding the treatment of unexplained cash credits and the disallowance of depreciation.
-
2012 (5) TMI 754
Process of selection of cases for scrutiny for corporate assessee - issuance of notice u/s. 143(2) - Held that:- The selection of scrutiny in this case is also completed beyond the prescribed period as prescribed in Instruction No. 9/2004 dated 20.09.2004. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny first time on 18.10.2004, as per copy of order sheet entry, and notice was issued fixing the hearing on 18.10.2004 itself. As per Instruction No. 9/2004 dated 20.09.2004, the process of selection of cases for scrutiny for returns filed up to 31.03.2004, in the present case assessee filed its return of income on 01.12.2003 must be completed by 15.10.2004.
The factual position as noted by CIT(A) in his appellate order that notice u/s. 143(2) is dated 10.10.2004, is not supported by Ld. Sr. DR at the time of hearing rather assessee contested that this finding of fact is erroneous and actual case was selected by issuing notice as on 18.10.2004. Even the basis of recording this fact is only from the assessment order wherein it is mentioned that notice u/s. 143(2) is dated 10.10.2004 and the same was served on the assessee on 19.10.2004 fixing the date of hearing on 16.12.2004. When going through the order sheet entry, which is taken by assessee from the assessment records clearly reveals that factually notice u/s. 143(2) was first time issued on 18.10.2004 and not on 10.10./2004. Thus we quash the issuance of notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act and subsequent assessment framed u/s. 143(3) of the Act. Appeal of assessee is allowed.
-
2012 (5) TMI 753
Rectification of mistake u/s 154 - Held that:- The assessment order could not have been taken up for modification in the name of rectification u/s 154 of the Act. There was no occasion for applying Section 154 of the Act in the present case as allowing of set off in the original assessment could not have been considered to be that of any mistake apparent from the record.
-
2012 (5) TMI 752
Rejection of books of accounts - N.P. determination - Held that:- We confirm the order of CIT(A) in rejecting the books of account of the assessee. After rejecting the books of accounts, the next step to be taken is estimation of profit for the year. The CIT(A) after considering the provisions of section 44AD and past history of the assessee found that the net profit rate of 7% will be reasonable rate. We notice that the assessee himself has shown the different net profit rates in different years i.e. 6.88% in A.Y. 2002-03 & 3.2% in A.Y. 2003-04. The calculation of net profit rate for the year under consideration comes to 5.1%. We find that the CIT(A) has rightly applied the net profit rate of 7% and contrary to that there is no material on record neither the same has been pointed out by any of the parties. Therefore, order of the CIT(A) on the issue is confirmed.
Addition u/s 68 - Held that:- Both the creditors have confirmed balance against their names. In respect of Shri Vijay Singh, it was informed and noted by the CIT(A) that he has died but the ld. Representative of the assessee produced the photocopy of accounts before the Assessing Officer and transaction was found genuine. In respect of Shri Jawahar Mishra & Shri Ashutosh Tripathi, the amount was through banking channel and the Assessing Officer did not dispute this fact. Thus, in the light of detailed discussions made by the CIT(A), we find that the CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer under section 68 of the Act. Order of the CIT(A) is confirmed on the issue.
Addition on account of refund of security - Held that:- CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition as the said amount was security deposit and not against the payment of contract work. There is no error in the order of CIT(A). Therefore, order of the CIT(A) is confirmed on the issue. Thus, ground raised by the Revenue in its appeal is dismissed.
-
2012 (5) TMI 751
Issues Involved:
1. Powers of the Commissioner of Central Excise to determine the capacity of production.
2. Determination of annual capacity of production without comparing with other furnaces.
3. Error of law by the Appellate Tribunal in methodology applied for determination.
4. Error of fact and law in considering actual lining and patching and dummy coils.
Summary:
Issue 1: Powers of the Commissioner of Central Excise to determine the capacity of production.
The appellants contended that they had provided documents showing the production capacity of their furnace was reduced to 3 M.T., and the Commissioner had no authority to determine otherwise. The court held that Rule 3(1) of the Induction Furnace Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997, requires an authenticated copy of the manufacturer's invoice or trader's invoice who supplied or installed the furnace. Since the document provided by the appellants was not from the manufacturer or installer, sub-rule (1) did not apply. Thus, the Commissioner correctly determined the capacity under sub-rule (2).
Issue 2: Determination of annual capacity of production without comparing with other furnaces.
The court noted that sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 applies in the absence of an authenticated invoice, allowing the Commissioner to determine capacity based on comparable furnaces or other relevant materials. The Commissioner's determination was found to be in accordance with this rule.
Issue 3: Error of law by the Appellate Tribunal in methodology applied for determination.
The appellants argued that the Tribunal erred in law by not considering their specific argument regarding the methodology used by the Commissioner. The court found no merit in this argument, noting that the Tribunal had previously remanded the matter for a hearing, and the Commissioner had followed due process.
Issue 4: Error of fact and law in considering actual lining and patching and dummy coils.
The appellants claimed that the Commissioner erred by not considering actual lining and patching and by considering dummy coils. The court found no merit in this argument, as the Commissioner's determination was based on verified dimensions and a formula developed with technical expertise.
Conclusion:
The court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the Commissioner's determination of the annual capacity of production was correct and in accordance with the applicable rules. The questions raised were either answered or treated as not pressed, and there was no merit found in the appeal.
-
2012 (5) TMI 750
Issues Involved: Appeal against penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for unaccounted job charges and bogus purchases.
Unaccounted Job Charges:
The assessee filed its return declaring a loss, but additions were made by the AO for unaccounted job charges and bogus purchases. The CIT (A) partially relieved the assessee, but ITAT sustained the additions. The AO then levied a penalty on the unaccounted job charges. CIT (A) partially upheld the penalty, citing findings from the assessment order and the case law of Somnath Oil Mills. The penalty was confirmed based on the failure to prove innocence and the presence of mens rea. The appellant's arguments were rejected, and the penalty was upheld based on established manipulation of accounts.
Bogus Purchases:
The ITAT found that three parties denied making sales to the assessee and admitted to providing bogus bills. The appellant failed to produce evidence of genuine purchases or good faith transactions. The penalty on bogus purchases was sustained by CIT (A) and based on the judgment in Dharmendra Textiles & Processors. The appellant appealed the penalty decision.
The appellant argued that the additions were based on estimations and assumptions, and penalty should not be imposed under sec 271(1)(c). The AR cited various decisions to support their case. The DR contended that the AO was justified in levying the penalty based on findings of manipulation in accounts and non-genuine purchases. The ITAT observations and statements of the parties involved were highlighted.
The Tribunal considered the arguments and evidence presented by both parties. It noted that the additions were made on estimates and not concrete evidence of concealment. Citing relevant case law, the Tribunal held that the mere sustenance of additions does not justify penalty imposition. The Tribunal found that the ingredients of sec 271(1)(c) were not satisfied and directed the deletion of the penalty.
In conclusion, the appeal of the Assessee against the penalty was allowed, and the penalty was deleted.
-
2012 (5) TMI 749
CENVAT Credit - waste/by-product - bagasse and press mud - appellant during the period from 10-5-2002 to July, 2009 cleared bagasse as also press mud on payment but did not proportionately reverse the Cenvat credit - Rules 6(3)(i) and (ii) of CCR - Held that:- Although the adjudicating authority has observed that the appellant has used Cenvatable inputs “lubricant, etc.”, in the manufacture of bagasse (liable to nil rate of excise duty), the adjudicating authority has not referred to any evidence which formed basis of this conclusion. Thus in our view the findings of the Authority is not supported by evidence and is based on unwarranted assumption.
The department has failed to establish that the appellant used Cenvatable inputs for production of baggase. Once it is concluded that the department has failed to establish that the appellant used Cenvatable inputs for manufacture of bagasse, Rule 6(2) and Rules 6(3)(i) & (ii) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 are not attracted.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2012 (5) TMI 748
Issues Involved:
1. Restriction of depreciation on motor cars used for business purposes.
2. Ad hoc disallowance of foreign traveling expenses.
Summary:
Issue 1: Restriction of Depreciation on Motor Cars
The assessee contested the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict depreciation on motor cars used for business purposes to 20% instead of 50%. The Assessing Officer (AO) had observed that the cars were not "new commercial vehicles" eligible for 50% depreciation as per Income Tax Rules. The AO referred to various dictionary definitions and newspaper reports to conclude that the cars were not commercial vehicles. The CIT(A) upheld this view, stating that the business of the appellant did not involve hiring vehicles, thus restricting depreciation to 20%.
The ITAT, however, noted that the cars were light motor vehicles as defined u/s 2 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and used for business purposes. The Tribunal referenced the definition of "commercial vehicle" in the Income Tax Rules, which includes light motor vehicles with an unladen weight of less than 7500 kg. The Tribunal also cited a similar case (Shah Rukh Khan Vs. DCIT) where higher depreciation was allowed. Consequently, the ITAT directed the AO to allow depreciation at 50%, allowing the assessee's appeal on this ground.
Issue 2: Ad Hoc Disallowance of Foreign Traveling Expenses
The assessee challenged the disallowance of Rs. 5,00,000 out of foreign traveling expenses. The AO had disallowed the expenses due to the lack of specific documentary evidence proving that the directors' foreign visits were for business purposes. The CIT(A) confirmed this disallowance, citing incomplete evidence.
The ITAT reviewed the details submitted by the assessee, which included travel dates, countries visited, and related expenses. The Tribunal found no evidence from the AO to suggest that the foreign travel was for personal purposes. Since the foreign travel was accepted as business-related, the ITAT ruled that the ad hoc disallowance lacked basis and set aside the CIT(A)'s order, allowing the assessee's appeal on this ground.
Conclusion:
The ITAT allowed the appeal of the assessee, directing the AO to allow depreciation at 50% for motor cars and to reverse the ad hoc disallowance of Rs. 5,00,000 for foreign traveling expenses.
Order pronounced on this 11th day of May, 2012.
-
2012 (5) TMI 747
The Appellate Tribunal ITAT Ahmedabad dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT (A)-I, Baroda for the assessment year 2008-09. The assessee sought permission to withdraw the appeal, which was granted. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
-
2012 (5) TMI 746
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of earlier year's expenses.
2. Allowance of interest paid to Financial Institution.
3. Deletion of addition being bad debts.
4. Allowing depreciation on exchange rate difference.
5. Deletion of modvat credit on capital goods and allowance of depreciation.
6. Deletion of addition being sales promotion expenses.
7. Disallowance of reimbursement to employees against traveling and advertisement expenses u/s 40A(3).
8. Notional interest on advances to subsidiary companies.
9. Disallowance of traveling expenses.
10. Disallowance of repairs to factory building.
11. Disallowance of advertisement expenses.
Summary:
1. Disallowance of earlier year's expenses:
The Revenue contested the disallowance of Rs. 7,63,666/- on account of earlier year's expenses. The Tribunal upheld CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition, noting that the assessee had suo-moto added back the expenses in the revised return.
2. Allowance of interest paid to Financial Institution:
The Revenue appealed against the allowance of interest of Rs. 8,51,76,446/- paid to Financial Institutions. The Tribunal upheld CIT(A)'s direction to verify the certificates and details furnished by the assessee and to allow the deduction if the payments were verifiable and supported by documents.
3. Deletion of addition being bad debts:
The Revenue contested the deletion of Rs. 1,30,000/- being bad debts. The Tribunal upheld the Revenue's contention that the amounts written off were advances for capital assets and not for trading liabilities, thus not allowable u/s 36(2) of the Act.
4. Allowing depreciation on exchange rate difference:
The Revenue appealed against the allowance of depreciation on the exchange rate difference. The Tribunal upheld CIT(A)'s decision, referencing the Supreme Court's ruling in CIT Vs Woodward Governor India (P) Ltd, which allows modification of the actual cost due to exchange rate fluctuations.
5. Deletion of modvat credit on capital goods and allowance of depreciation:
The Revenue contested the deletion of modvat credit on capital goods and allowance of depreciation. The Tribunal upheld CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the assessee had already reduced the modvat from the cost of plant and machinery, thus disallowing depreciation would amount to double disallowance.
6. Deletion of addition being sales promotion expenses:
The Revenue appealed against the deletion of Rs. 2,80,140/- being sales promotion expenses. The Tribunal upheld CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to 10% of the total expenses, finding no infirmity in the order.
7. Disallowance of reimbursement to employees against traveling and advertisement expenses u/s 40A(3):
The assessee contested the disallowance of Rs. 1,08,372/- u/s 40A(3). The Tribunal directed that only 20% of the expenditure should be disallowed instead of the entire amount, in line with the amendment to section 40A(3).
8. Notional interest on advances to subsidiary companies:
The assessee contested the notional interest of Rs. 1,59,000/- on advances to subsidiary companies. The Tribunal upheld the disallowance, following the co-ordinate Bench's decision in the assessee's own case for earlier years.
9. Disallowance of traveling expenses:
The assessee contested the disallowance of Rs. 49,570/- for traveling expenses. The Tribunal upheld the disallowance, noting that the assessee failed to prove that the expenditure was for business purposes.
10. Disallowance of repairs to factory building:
The assessee contested the disallowance of Rs. 32,048/- for repairs to the factory building. The Tribunal upheld the disallowance, agreeing with CIT(A) that the expenditure on the Sintex Tank was capital in nature.
11. Disallowance of advertisement expenses:
The assessee contested the disallowance of Rs. 13,000/- for advertisement expenses. The Tribunal upheld the disallowance, agreeing with CIT(A) that the expenditure was not incurred fully and exclusively for business purposes.
Conclusion:
The appeals of both the Revenue and the Assessee were partly allowed. The Tribunal pronounced the order in open court on 11-5-2012.
-
2012 (5) TMI 745
Issues involved: Disallowance of depreciation on Membership card of Bombay Stock Exchange, disallowance of bad debts, disallowance u/s.14A, disallowance of entrance fee/subscription charges, rate of depreciation in respect of UPS, deletion of bad debts, disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) for transaction charges and VSAT charges.
Disallowed depreciation on Membership card of Bombay Stock Exchange:
The assessee claimed depreciation on two Membership cards of the Bombay Stock Exchange, which was disallowed by the Assessing Officer (A.O.). The issue was found to be covered in favor of the assessee by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the A.O. was directed to allow the depreciation on both Membership cards.
Disallowance of bad debts:
The A.O. disallowed bad debts claimed by the assessee, but it was contended that the issue is covered in favor of the assessee by the decision of the ITAT, Special Bench, Mumbai. The claim of bad debts was allowed as the issue stood covered in favor of the assessee.
Disallowance u/s.14A:
The A.O. disallowed expenses u/s.14A for earning dividend income, but it was noted that Rule 8D cannot be applied for the assessment year in question. The issue was restored to the A.O. for fresh adjudication in line with the principles laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay.
Disallowed entrance fee/subscription charges:
The issue of entrance fee/subscription charges paid to Otters Club was allowed as it was considered by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in a similar case and found to be covered by relevant decisions. The addition of the entrance fee was deleted.
Rate of depreciation in respect of UPS:
The A.O. restricted the depreciation claimed on UPS to 15%, but it was directed to allow depreciation at 80% based on the utilization of UPS as Automatic Voltage Controller, following a decision of the co-ordinate Bench of the ITAT.
Deletion of bad debts:
The deletion of bad debts was upheld based on a previous decision in the assessee's own case for a different assessment year.
Disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) for transaction charges and VSAT charges:
The A.O. disallowed transaction charges and VSAT charges, but it was found that transaction charges were liable for TDS and VSAT charges were allowed based on relevant decisions. The order of the Ld. CIT (A) was partly reversed on this issue.
Conclusion:
The appeals were partly allowed for statistical purposes, with various issues being decided in favor of the assessee based on legal precedents and interpretations.
-
2012 (5) TMI 744
Allowance of the claim of exemption u/s. 54F - Held that:- Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vania Silk Mills P. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Income-tax (1991 (8) TMI 2 - SUPREME Court) has laid down the principle that extinguishment of right on account of destruction or loss of asset does not amount to transfer as the assessee has invested the amount as per provisions of Sec. 54F in the residential house, the exemption cannot be denied. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2012 (5) TMI 743
Levy of penalty u/s. 271(1) (c) - higher g.p. rate - Held that:- For both the years, the clear finding by the tribunal for sustaining a higher g.p. rate is to plug a possible leakage of revenue on account of unverifiable purchases; the assessee having exhibited the purchase of goods against its unverifiable purchases. The assessee can under the circumstances only be considered as having substantiated it explanation, if not to the hilt, substantially so, with all the facts material to the computation of income being on record. Once it is accepted as a fact that the goods had indeed been purchased, an addition on account of a possibility of having incurred a higher expenditure than claimed, though definitely valid for effecting a disallowance of the claimed expenditure; the assessee having failed to prove their actual cost as incurred, cannot lead to the inference of a wrong claim, justifying the levy of penalty. That is, the very fact of the tribunal sustaining a higher g.p. rate only to plug a possible leakage of revenue on account of unverifiable purchases, proves the assessee’s claim of absence of any charge of having not disclosed its correct income, and of having a plausible explanation in support of the returned income. The same, though, would not prove its case as regards the claim of expenditure (or income), yet remains a valid claim for the purpose of levy of penalty. No penalty is exigible in the instant case - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2012 (5) TMI 742
Registration under section 12A - Held that:- We have also gone through the documents placed on record. We are of the opinion that trusts with similar objects have been granted registration under section 12AA of the Act. In order to meet the ends of justice, we set aside the impugned orderpassed by the CIT-I, Coimbatore and remit the matter back to the CIT-I, Coimbatore to decide the matter afresh after taking into consideration the order/registration certificates granted by the Director of Income Tax (Exemptions), Kolkata and Commissioner of Income Tax, Mysore respectively. The assessee is directed to produce all necessary documents as may be required by CIT-I, Coimbatore while deciding the application for registration afresh.
-
2012 (5) TMI 741
Issues involved: Entitlement to avail Cenvat credit of Service Tax paid on GTA services for transportation of goods.
Issue 1: Entitlement to Cenvat credit of Service Tax paid on GTA services
The issue revolved around whether the appellants were entitled to avail the benefit of Cenvat credit of Service Tax paid on the GTA services used for transporting goods from their factory gate to buyers' premises. The appellant relied on a Tribunal's Larger Bench decision in the case of ABB Ltd. vs. Commissioner, but the Commissioner (Appeals) did not follow this decision, citing a stay by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. However, the Karnataka High Court later upheld the judgment of the Larger Bench, as reported in [2011 (23) STR 97 (Kar)]. Given this development, the Judicial Member set aside the impugned orders and allowed both appeals, granting consequential relief to the appellants.
In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi, in the case before Archana Wadhwa (Judicial Member), addressed the issue of entitlement to Cenvat credit of Service Tax paid on GTA services for transporting goods. The Tribunal referred to the conflicting decisions of the Tribunal's Larger Bench and the Commissioner (Appeals), ultimately relying on the Karnataka High Court's decision to grant relief to the appellants.
-
2012 (5) TMI 740
Issues involved: Delay in presenting the appeal before the Tribunal, computation of income under the head house property, disallowance of expenses.
Delay in presenting the appeal: The appeal by the assessee was delayed by three days, but the Tribunal condoned the delay after being satisfied with the genuineness of the cause presented in the affidavit.
Computation of income under the head house property: The assessee owned three properties, with one self-occupied flat in Mumbai and two flats in Pune. The Assessing Officer computed income from the Pune flats at a higher value than declared by the assessee. The Tribunal, following precedent, held that in the absence of actual rent received, the annual value should be determined based on municipal valuation, resulting in the deletion of an addition of &8377; 2,21,494.
Disallowance of expenses: The Assessing Officer disallowed 20% of car expenses, telephone expenses, and depreciation on the car due to the lack of log books or call registers. The Tribunal, considering the lack of documentation, reduced the disallowance from 20% to 15% based on the overall circumstances of the case.
Conclusion: The appeal was partly allowed by the Tribunal, with the order pronounced on May 31, 2012.
-
2012 (5) TMI 739
The Supreme Court dismissed a review petition against an order dated 21st February, 2012, stating that no case for review was made out. The review petition was dismissed.
-
2012 (5) TMI 738
Issues involved: The judgment deals with the deletion of additions made u/s 41(1)(a), 69C & 40a(ia) of the Income Tax Act after rejection of books of account and estimation of income in the hands of the assessee.
Deletion of Additions u/s 41(1)(a): The Assessing Officer made an addition under section 41(1)(a) of the Act due to payments made by the assessee to contractors against outstanding liabilities. However, the CIT(A) deleted this addition, stating that the provisions of section 41(1)(a) were not applicable in this case as there was no cassation or remission of liability. The Tribunal found no merit in the revenue's appeal and dismissed it.
Deletion of Additions u/s 69C: Another addition was made under section 69C of the Act based on the variation in reporting of cash payments by the assessee and cash receipts by the recipient. The Tribunal held that no such disallowance was warranted in the hands of the assessee, in line with established legal principles.
Deletion of Additions u/s 40a(ia): The Assessing Officer disallowed a sum under section 40a(ia) of the Act for non-deduction of tax at source out of hire charges. However, the Tribunal noted that there was no regulation for deduction of tax at source out of hire charges during the relevant year. The Tribunal further emphasized that no further addition could be made in the hands of the assessee after estimating income using the net profit rate and rejecting the books of account.
Legal Principles and Precedents: The Tribunal referred to various legal principles and precedents, such as the judgments of different High Courts and the Supreme Court, to support its decision to dismiss the revenue's appeal against the deletions of additions made by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal highlighted that when books of account are rejected, no reliance can be placed on them for making additions, and that the estimation of income takes care of irregularities committed by the assessee.
Conclusion: Ultimately, the Tribunal found no merit in the revenue's grounds of appeal and dismissed the appeal. The judgment was pronounced on 2nd May, 2012.
-
2012 (5) TMI 737
Issues involved:
The judgment involves the interpretation of section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act regarding the late deposit of TDS by the assessee for rent, commission, and maintenance expenses for the assessment year 2008-09.
Summary:
Issue 1: Late deposit of TDS under section 40(a)(ia)
The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 52,10,873 under section 40(a)(ia) due to late deposit of TDS by the assessee. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleted this addition, citing that the TDS was deducted and deposited before the due date of filing the return, thus not attracting disallowance under section 40(a)(ia).
Details:
The Assessing Officer noted late TDS deposits based on the Audit Report. The Assessing Officer calculated the amount to be added under section 40(a)(ia) as Rs. 52,10,873. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) considered the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) and relevant case laws to determine that the disallowance was not justified as the TDS was deposited before the due date.
Conclusion:
The Appellate Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and dismissed the Revenue's appeal, stating that the amendment to section 40(a)(ia) is retrospective and the TDS was deposited before the return filing date, thus no disallowance was warranted.
............
|
9911796707
