TMI Blog2013 (4) TMI 8X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ution is Not deposited by the due date prescribed and is deposited late, the employer not only pays interest on delayed payment but can incur penalties also. - deduction claimed by the Assessee has to be allowed. - Decided in favor of assessee. Regarding Professional Fees - AO added the sum observing that the assessee failed to reconcile the bills and books of account. - The assessee’s stand was that in the receipts it had reflected a sum of Rs.40,200/- as receipt from TCM Property Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. - This sum was arrived at by the assessee by deducting Rs. 5594/- as service tax received from Rs. 45794/- receivable from the aforesaid party. - Held that:- matter remanded back for reconsideration. - ITA 5833/MUM/10 - - - Dated:- 31-1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y, 2006 398 21.06.2006 20.12.2006 June, 2006 491 21.07.2006 20.12.2006 July, 2006 4,470 21.08.2006 20.12.2006 August, 2006 3,668 21.09.2006 20.12.2006 September, 2006 8,703 21.10.2006 20.12.2006 October, 2006 36,924 21.11.2006 20.12.2006 55,008 3. Before CIT(A) the assessee submitted that payments made on or before the due date for filing the return of income has to be allowed as deduction and relied on the decision of Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. M.N. Chari, 310 ITR 445 (Kar). The CIT(A) was of the view that as far ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... k note of the fact that in Alom Extrusions 319 ITR 306 (SC), the deletion of the second Proviso has been held to be with retrospective effect. The Hon ble Delhi High Court had to consider whether the benefit of s. 43B can be extended to employees contribution as well which are paid after the due date under the PF law but before the due date for filing the return. The Hon ble Court held that: (i) Though the revenue has argued that a distinction is to be made between employers contribution and employees contribution and that employees contribution being in the nature of trust money in the hands of the assessee cannot be allowed as a deduction if not paid on or before the due date specified in the PF etc law, the scheme of the Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reads as follows: 2. The learned CIT(A) ought not have confirmed the addition of Rs.45,794/- as professional fees, since the details were already submitted before learned ITO and fees is already accounted for. 6. In the course of assessment proceedings the AO called upon the assessee to explain as to why professional fees received of Rs.45,794/- from Trammell Crow Megharaj Property Consultant Pvt. Ltd. is not reflected in the receipts shown by the assessee in its books of accounts. The assessee submitted before the AO that the assessee did not receive any such amount from the said party. The AO however, added the aforesaid sum observing that the assessee failed to reconcile the bills and books of account. 7. Before CIT(A), the Ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, the disallowance made by the AC is confirmed and ground of appeal is dismissed. 9. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A) the assesse has raised ground No.2 before the Tribunal. 10. We are of the view that the issue should be remanded to the AO for fresh consideration. The assessee s stand was that in the receipts it had reflected a sum of Rs.40,200/- as receipt from TCM Property Consultancy Pvt. Ltd.. This sum was arrived at by the assessee by deducting Rs. 5594/- as service tax received from Rs. 45794/- receivable from the aforesaid party. It was the case of the assessee that Trammell Crow Meghara Property Consultancy Ltd. and TCM Property Pvt. Ltd. are one and the same party. This was not properly appreciated either by the AO or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
