TMI Blog2011 (12) TMI 561X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f ₹ 31,677/- paid by the company. 3 The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee has taken the adjoining premises to its existing business premises belonging to one of the Directors of the assessee company without any liability of rent for business purpose. However, municipal taxes amounting to ₹ 31,677/- were paid by the assessee which is an allowable expenditure. He referred to the confirmation from the landlord of the adjoining premises in which he has confirmed that the premises were used by the assessee company for their business purpose during the relevant period and the municipal taxes were paid by the assessee company, a copy of which was filed in the compilation before us. The learned DR submitt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ount of ₹ 5,95,000/- on 31-08-2004. The learned counsel for the assessee referred to the copy of account of the assessee company in the books of M/s SCPL wherein similar entries appear and they have passed the debit entries of ₹ 5,95,000/- to the account of the assessee on 28-01-2005. A copy of the account of the assessee company as well as M/s SCPL have been filed in the compilation of the assessee. 7 The learned DR referred to page 4 of the compilation filed by the assessee which is the account copy of M/s SCPL in the books of the assessee wherein an amount of ₹ 85,000/- has been received on account of service charges in the month of April, 2004 onwards on monthly basis till August, 2004. He submitted that if the amou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from M/s SCPL were discontinued and therefore the necessary entries of cancellation of the contract were passed on 31-08-2004 in the books of the assessee company in the account of M/s SCPL and the differential sum of ₹ 5,95,000/- was credited to their account. The assessee has also filed the ledger account copy of the assessee company in the books of M/s SCPL wherein similar entries were passed by M/s SCPL and the differential amount of ₹ 5,95,000/- was debited to the account of assessee company on 28-01-2005 and, therefore, there remains no discrepancy between the account of the assessee company and M/s SCPL. Merely because the TDS was deducted at a higher amount and paid to the credit of the Central Government is not a ground ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e law cited by CIT(A) of AY 1977-78 is not applicable in the case of the appellant. 11 The learned counsel for the assessee has relied on the decision of the Hon ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs. Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. Ors. (2011) 237 CTR (Ker) 164 and the decision of the ITAT Ahmedabad Bench-C in the case of Sagar Drugs Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. [ITA No.3179/Ahd/2009, order dated 03-06-2011] and submitted that no expenditure were incurred by the assessee company on the dividend income. The learned DR submitted that the disallowance u/s 14A is called for in the facts of the case and relied on the decision of the Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej Boyce Mfg. Co. vs. DCIT (2010) 328 ITR 81 (Bom). 12 We ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
