9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 1007X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [(CIT(A)] is bad both in the eye of law and on facts. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] has erred, both on facts and in law, in confirming the proportionate disallowance of interest in respect of security deposit of Rs. 41,11,348/-. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] has erred, both on facts and in law, in ignoring the fact that the assessee being a Public Sector Company, the entire security deposit held by it is of the customers and the interest thereon cannot be disallowed merely on the surmise that security deposit is an unexplained deposit. 4. (i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] has erred, both on facts and in law, in confirming the disallowance u/s. 14A, to the extent of Rs. 1,79,15,000/- under Rule 8D(2)(iii). (ii) That the disallowance has been confirmed rejecting the contention of the assessee that in view of no administrative expenses having been incurred in relation to except income no disallowance is called for. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,002,000/-. Accordingly, he passed an order on 17 April 2017 by which the assessee is aggrieved and has preferred this appeal. 6. The first ground of appeal challenging that the order of the CIT - A is bad both in the eye of law and on facts was not agitated before us and therefore it is dismissed. 7. The ground number 2 relates to the confirmation of proportionate disallowance of interest in respect of security deposit of Rs. 4,111,348/-. For the assessment year 2006 - 07 the amount outstanding Under the head customers deposit were held to be not payable by the assessee and were entirely taxed in that year. The interest on such deposit was also taxed in the hence of the assessee. Therefore the AO asked that why an amount of interest of 4.11 million should not be taxed in the hence of the assessee under the head customers deposit which was taxed as in the hence of the assessee for assessment year 2006 - 07. The assessee submitted that in the earlier years the CIT - A has given a relief in proportion of the security deposits. The assessee submitted that the order of the learned CIT - A4 earlier years has been challenged before the ITAT and it is pending for the decision. On the me ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecision in the case of the assessee for assessment year 2006 - 07 and set aside the issue back to the file of the assessing officer with a direction to decide the issue afresh in the light of the direction of tribunal and in accordance with the law. We also decided this ground accordingly and set aside the issue to the file of AO with the same direction the ground number 2 and 3 raised by the assessee is accordingly allowed. 11. Ground number 4 is with respect to confirmation of the disallowance u/s. 14A to the extent of Rs. 179,15,000 under rule 8D(2)(iii) of the act the assessee contest this ground that disallowance has been confirmed rejecting the contention of the assessee that in view of low administrative expenses having been incurred in relation to the exempt income no disallowance is called for. During the year, assessee has received nil dividend income. The AO invoke the provisions of rule 8D and computed the disallowance of Rs. 143,074,000/-. On appeal before the learned CIT - A following the order of the predecessor for assessment year 11 - 12 dated 1/3/2016 he deleted the other disallowances but retain the addition/disallowance to the extent of 0.5% of the average inve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1 percent or 2%. Therefore he assumed that the shorter deduction of Rs. 1,800,290 represents 1% of the amount on which tax should have been deducted and therefore he disallowed Rs. 180,029,000 by applying the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the act. On appeal before the learned CIT - A the matter was remanded to the assessing officer and issue was re-examined with response of the assessee. The learned CIT - A and the certificate issued to the assessee for lower deduction of tax with respect to certain payee. Before him, the assessee explained that rectification has been done with respect to the tax-deductor at source returns and no demand is outstanding except the disputed amount of Rs. 70,020. He therefore confirmed the addition of Rs. 7,002,000/-. With respect to the addition of Rs. 2,080,400/- he directed the learned assessing officer to verify whether the corresponding tax deduction at source payment was made after the due date on before that. He directed the learned assessing officer that if it was paid after due date the addition of Rs. 12,80,400/- stands confirmed or if it is not so it stands deleted. Therefore the assessee is aggrieved with that and as per ground number ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
