TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 401X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le. We observe in these facts that this action on part of both the lower authorities goes contrary to the above stated Rule. It mainly talks about credit for TDS deduction at source and paid to the Central Government for the assessment year for which such income is assessable and not vice versa since the authorities below rather added the income in the impugned assessment year. We further notice that clause (ii) of sub-Rule 3 of Rule 37BA envisages that credit for tax deducted at source shall be allowed across those years in the same proportion in which the income is assessable to tax. We repeat once again that this clause no where prescribes addition of income component since dealing with TDS credit issue only. We rather observe that these expressions make it clear that main endeavor in the Rule in question deals with an issue wherein an income is split over in more than one assessment year as against facts of the case wherein there is no such circumstance. We thus conclude that the impugned addition is not sustainable. The same stands deleted. Section 14A disallowance comprising of proportionate interest and administrative expense - Held that:- Jurisdictional high court’s deci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no. CIT(A)-III/257/Addl.CIT-1/12-13 in proceedings u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short the Act . 2. We first come to assessee s appeal ITA No.247/Ahd/2014. It raises three substantive grounds. First one amongst them challenges both the lower authorities action in disallowing the sum in question of ₹ 2,02,500/- incurred in order to increase assessee s authorized share capital. This sum comprises of franking charges of ₹ 1,77,500/- for filing Form V followed by the letter head of filing fees amounting to ₹ 25000/-. Both the lower authorities quote hon ble apex court s decision in Brooke Bond India vs. CIT 225 ITR 798 (SC) as followed in case of M/s. Vareli Textiles Industries vs. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 238 (Guj.). Learned counsel for the assessee vehemently argues in favour of assessee s grievance pleaded in the instant ground. He however fails to rebut application of the above case law squarely covering the issue. This first substantive ground is accordingly rejected. 3. The assessee s second substantive ground challenges addition of ₹ 1,14,457/- made by both the lower authorities on account of reconciliation of receipts with TDS certificate. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt year only. He would accordingly add the sum in question of ₹ 1,14,457/- comprising of the above two receipts of ₹ 9000/- + 1,05,457/- in question. 5. The assessee preferred an appeal. The CIT(A) does not disturb the Assessing Officer s finding in principle. The assessee appears to have raised an alternative contention of having declared the income in question in the succeeding assessment year. The CIT(A) directs the assessing authority to verify this plea and rectify assessment in assessee s case for the said assessment year to the extent of the impugned sum in order to avoid double taxation. 6. We have heard both the parties. Learned counsel submits that Section 199 of the Act stands amended w.e.f. 01.04.2008 as applicable in the impugned assessment year. His case is that this amended statutory provision provides that if TDS is deducted and paid to the government, then irrespective of the fact that income on which TDS has been deducted pertains to any other assessment year, credit for the TDS must be given in the year in which the same is deducted and paid to the government. The assessee s further contents that purpose of the said amendment is to remove diffic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be allowed across those years in the same proportion in which the income is assessable to tax. We repeat once again that this clause no where prescribes addition of income component since dealing with TDS credit issue only. We rather observe that these expressions make it clear that main endeavor in the Rule in question deals with an issue wherein an income is split over in more than one assessment year as against facts of the case wherein there is no such circumstance. We thus conclude that the impugned addition is not sustainable. The same stands deleted. 10. The assessee s third substantive ground challenges Section 14A disallowance of ₹ 10,51,614/- comprising of proportionate interest and administrative expenses figures of ₹ 1,93,297/- and ₹ 8,58,317/-; respectively. The assessee s dividend income is ₹ 1,29,31,565/-. It claims to have not incurred any expenditure regarding the same. The Assessing Officer does not appear to have recorded any satisfaction qua this objection after having regard to assessee s books stipulated in Section 14A(2) of the Act and computed the corresponding disallowance as indicated hereinabove. The CIT(A) affirms Assessing Of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
