9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 99X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se and the law laid down in this respect. 2. That, the Assessing Officer and the Hon'ble CIT (A) has errored in taxing the commission payable of Rs. 4,08,080 in this year, while this amount belongs to the subsequent year when the bills were raised and the amount was received. The Appellant has never offered to tax in this year Rs. 4,08,080. The submission of the Assessing Officer in this respect is his words and not the words of the Appellant. The Affidavit can be submitted for the confirmation of this submission. 3. That, the Hon'ble CIT (A) has errored in considering the loan processing fees as a capital expenditure instead of revenue expenditure. The Loan processing fees payable to bank is a bank charges for rendering services for gr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oods to various State Transport Corporation and the commission of the assessee was due only when the money was received by those companies/firms upon acceptance of the goods by the respective State Transport Corporation. It was further submitted that the assessee could issue bills, only when the payment was actually received by those companies/firms and during the year under consideration the main dispute was in respect of bills issued to M/s. Modi Industries Ltd. It was submitted that M/s Modi Industries Ltd. booked the payment of commission on provisional basis without receipt of bills issued by the assessee, whereas the assessee while filing the return, had taken the credit of the TDS of Rs. 40,245/- as reflected in form No. 26AS on this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of which has been claimed in the year under consideration but the income was offered in subsequent year. 4.1 Before us, learned Authorized Representative of the assessee submitted that the assessee was following regular method of raising bills only on receipt of payment by companies/firms from State Transport Corporation and accordingly the income from M/s Modi Industries Ltd. was shown in the assessment year 2010-11 as the bills in respect of the income were only raised in the previous year corresponding to the assessment year 2010-11. In support of the contention, the learned AR relied on the decision of third member ITAT in the case of Smt Versa G Salunke Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax reported in 101 TTJ 703 (TM). 4.2 On the ot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t to carve out an exception to section 145 of the Act. Section 199 of the Act has two objectives - one to declare the tax deducted at source as payment of tax on behalf of the person on whose behalf the deduction was made and to give credit for the amount so deducted on the production of the certificate in the assessment made for the assessment year for which such income is assessable. The second objective mentioned in section 199 is only to answer the question as to the year in which the credit for tax deducted at source shall be given. It links up the credit with assessment year in which such income is assessable. In other words, the Assessing Officer is bound to give credit in the year in which the income is offered to tax. This section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssment year in which the income is shown to have been assessed. 7. In the light of the above discussions, I agree with the reasoning given by the learned Accountant Member, who has correctly directed the exclusion of the income represented by these three TDS Certificates from being assessed in the assessment year 1997- 98, i.e., the year under consideration. But the assessee, in the light of the scheme of the provisions of sections 198 and 199 of the Act, shall not be allowed to claim the credit in respect of these TDS Certificates for which the income has not been returned by her as a result of the method of accounting employed. The credit shall be carried forward and the assessee will get the credit for the present TDS Certificate in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 520/-as capital expenditure. In absence of any explanation, the AO held the expenditure as capital expenditure as it was related to the purchase of car, being a capital asset. Before the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the assessee submitted that the payment was just like a bank charges payable to bank for rendering services like providing loan for the car. On the issue in dispute the learned Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) held as under: "........................................................................... On this issue it is held that since the car loan processing fee charged by the bank is for the purposes of purchase of car which is a capital asset, therefore this amount being inextrically linked to the purch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
