9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 808X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unt of TDS payable of Rs. 30,03,217/- outstanding on 31 March 2012 though paid within the due date prescribed by the Act by holding that the same is not allowable deduction as the same was not paid during the year as the assessee followed cash system of accounting ignoring the facts and submissions placed on record. Thus the addition so made should be deleted. 2. The CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the disallowance of an amount of Rs. 4,24,941/- being 4/5th of the electricity expenses of L-41 office averring the said premises are being used by M/s Bhakru & Associates, M/s Unravel Mercantile (P) Ltd., M/s Grant Thornton India (P) Ltd. and M/s Walker Chandiok & Associates ignoring the submissions and evidences placed on reco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt Year 2012-13. The assessee is a Chartered Accountant Firm by profession derived income from business or profession. Return of income declared at Rs. 20,83,58,070-/- was filed on 29/09/2012 and revised return was field on 28/3/2014 declaring income of Rs. 20,83,070/-. The Assessing Officer passed assessment order dated 30/03/2015 thereby making disallowance of expenses which have not been paid in the relevant Financial Year to the extent of Rs. 11,86,074/- as well as disallowance of interest paid to partners to the extent of Rs. 38,34,686/-. 4. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT (A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 5. As regards Ground No. 1, the Ld. AR submitted that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd No. 2 is related to disallowance of amount of Rs. 4,24,941/- being 4/5th of the Electricity expenses of L-41 Office averring the said premises are being used by the M/s Bhakru and Associates, M/s Unravel Mercantile Pvt. Ltd., M/s Grant Thornton India Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Walker Chandiok & Associate. The Ld. AR submitted that the evidences placed on record was totally ignored by the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A). The Ld. AR further submitted that this issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Tribunal in assessee's own case in Assessment Year 2010-11 and 2011-12 and the additions were deleted. 9. The Ld. DR relied upon the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A). 10. We have heard both the parties and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 20,43,675/- paid to Mr. Vinod Chandiok, we find that it has been calculate as per the terms of partnership deed clause (5), but the IT Act does not permit to allow the interest paid to partners as per the partnership deed. In this regard, the relevant provisions of the IT Act is as under : (iv) any payment of interest to any partner which is authorised by, and is in accordance with, the terms of the partnership deed and relates to any period falling after the date of such partnership deed in so far as such amount exceeds the amount calculated at the rate of twelve per cent simple interest per annum; or It is clear from the above section that the payment of interest to the partners who are authorized in the partnership deed, has to be ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
