TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 70X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ained under section 40(a)(ia)does not make any distinction between the amount paid or payable. Therefore, disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) has to be made even in respect of amount paid in the relevant previous year without deduction of tax at source under section 194A. Therefore, reversing the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) on this issue, we sustain the addition made by the Assessing Officer. Ground raised is allowed. Disallowance under section 14A r/w rule 8D - Held that:- Assessing Officer has treated the dividend income earned by the assessee as exempt for the purpose of making disallowance under section 14A, however, while computing the income of the assessee he has not excluded the exempt income. AO is directed to e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anoj Kumar Singh Assessee by : Shri A.K. Ghosh ORDER Per Saktijit Dey, J.M. Aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the order dated 1st December 2016, passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) 12, Mumbai, for the assessment year 2012 13. 2. Ground no.1, the Revenue has challenged deletion of disallowance of ₹ 2,10,800 made under section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act ). 3. Brief facts are, the assessee, a company, is engaged in the business of rendering cleaning and other allied services of Aviation Industry and also operates pre paid taxi booth counters. For the assessment year under dispute, the assessee filed its return of income on 25th September 2012 declari ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rther, the claim of the assessee that the amount in dispute was paid in the relevant previous year and nothing remained outstanding at the end of the year is of no relevance as the provisions contained under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act does not make any distinction between the amount paid or payable. Therefore, disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act has to be made even in respect of amount paid in the relevant previous year without deduction of tax at source under section 194A of the Act. Therefore, reversing the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) on this issue, we sustain the addition made by the Assessing Officer. Ground raised is allowed. 6. In ground no.2, the Revenue has challenged deletion of disallowance of S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eet, he submitted that dividend income was earned on shares in Co operative Bank and in Private Companies which are neither exempt from taxation nor the assessee has claimed exemption in respect of such income. Thus, he submitted, in the absence of any exempt income, no disallowance under section 14A r/w rule 8D can be made. 11. We have considered rival submissions and perused materials on record. Undisputedly, the assessee has not claimed exemption in respect of dividend income earned of ₹ 13,158, in the return of income filed by it. Assessee has pleaded that the aforesaid dividend income was earned by the assessee from shares in Co operative Bank and Private Companies; therefore, such dividend income is not exempt. However, it ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntum of exempt income earned during the relevant previous year. We, therefore, restore this issue to the Assessing Officer for adjudicating afresh keeping in view our aforesaid observations. Needless to mention, the Assessing Officer must afford reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee before deciding the issue. This ground is allowed for statistical purposes. 12. In ground no.3, the Revenue has challenged the deletion of addition of ₹ 1,16,74,801, on account of non payment of Employees Contribution to Provident Fund and Employees State Insurance Corporation. 13. Brief facts are, during the assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer on verification of the tax audit report found that Employees Contribution to Pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s contribution to PF and ESIC simply for the reason that such payments were made by the assessee after the due date as provided under section 36(1)(va) of the Act. However, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) on verification of material on record has found that the employee s contribution to PF and ESIC were paid before the due date of filing of return of income for the impugned assessment year. That being the case, the ratio of the decisions relied upon by the learned Commissioner (Appeals), including the decisions of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in case of CIT v/s Hindustan Organics Ltd., 366 ITR 001 and CIT v/s Ghatge Patil Transport Ltd., 368 ITR 749, clearly apply to the facts of the assessee s case. As regards disallowance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
