Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2020 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (2) TMI 557 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance u/s 14A - HELD THAT:- Though the assessee has earned dividend income of ₹ 8,800/- as against disallowance made by the AO but has not claimed the same as dividend income in the computation of income, in these circumstances, no disallowance can be made u/s 14A read with Rule 8D. So, we find no illegality or perversity in the findings returned by the ld. CIT (A). Ground No.1 of Revenue’s appeal for AY 2011-12 is determined against the Revenue. Addition made merely on the basis of fact that information u/s 133(6) has not been filed by some of the creditors - HELD THAT:- It is proved that the AO as well as ld. CIT (A) proceeded to make/confirm the addition without considering the reply of the assessee and without procuring the presence of such sundry creditors to whom the notices u/s 133(6) were issued by using coercive method. In AY 2011-12, AO as well as ld. CIT (A) have made/confirmed the addition of ₹ 15,19,688/- out of amount of ₹ 35,10,494/- challenged vide ground no.3 on account of nonconfirmation from creditors which had resulted into double taxation as the similar addition was made in the preceding years. In AY 2010-11, AO has also recorded strange observation that, “the assessee was to provide information called for along with proof of identity on the assessee’s letter-head with cop of PAN and ITR to establish the genuineness of the transaction.” We are constrained to record that information called for need not be furnished on the letter-head when it is otherwise supported with requisite documents. All these facts show that the addition has been made merely on the basis of conjectures and surmise and the issue is required to be remitted back to the AO to decided afresh after providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee, so as to reconcile the discrepancies arisen out of the reply of various parties given in response to notice u/s 133 (6). Disallowance u/s 36 (1)(iii) - Interest free loans - HELD THAT:- In the instant case, when the assessee has come up with specific defence that the advance has been made out of interest free funds and the same has been made for business expediency, the applicability of the judgment relied upon by the ld. DR for the Revenue is to be seen after marshalling of the facts pleaded by the assessee only. So, in the given circumstances, these issues are required to be decided by passing a speaking order. Accordingly, this issue is remitted back to the AO to decide afresh after providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee Wrongly computed tax demand by not allowing the complete tax credit of TCS and TDS - HELD THAT:- This issue has been arisen out of some clerical error on the part of the AO who has not taken into consideration TCS and TDS credit for computing the tax liability. So, we direct the AO to verify the TCS and TDS credits claimed by the assessee and computed the tax liability accordingly, hence Ground No.5 of assessee’s appeal for AY 2010-11 is determined in favour of the assessee for statistical purposes. Addition u/s 36(1)(va) on account of delay in filing the employees’ contribution to provident fund on the ground that the assessee has made payment before filing of the return of income - HELD THAT:- Following the decision rendered in case of CIT vs. Bharat Hotels Ltd. [2018 (9) TMI 798 - DELHI HIGH COURT] we are of the considered view that the assessee company is not entitled for deduction u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act claimed on account of depositing the employees contribution towards ESI & PF as per provisions contained u/s 2(24)(x) read with section 36(1)(va) after due date which is evident from table extracted in preceding para no.5. So, the case laws relied upon by the ld. AR for the assessee is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. Consequently, finding no illegality or perversity in the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT (A), appeal filed by the assessee is hereby dismissed. Addition u/s 40(a)(ia) on account of disallowance for nondeduction of tax on commission expenses - HELD THAT:- CIT (A) after thrashing the facts and after entertaining additional evidence filed by the assessee qua which remand report was called reached the conclusion that the assessee company has given rebate and discount on sales which cannot be treated as commission. When it is undisputed case of the assessee company that the payment has been directly given to the vendee and not through any commission agent, it cannot be treated as commission. During the preceding years, such payment has been treated as rebate and discount and not commission and the AO has not been able to distinguish the facts of the instant case with that of the preceding years. So, in the given circumstances, we are of the considered view that when it is rebate and discount and not commission, no TDS is required to be deducted. Consequently, we are of the considered view that CIT (A) has rightly deleted the addition, hence ground no.3 is determined against the Revenue.
|