TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 808X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee s appeal is allowed. Disallowance of amount being 4/5th of the Electricity expenses - HELD THAT:- After going through the evidences placed before the Assessing Officer, it can be seen that the assessee has given a plausible explanation. AO has made an estimated disallowance which is not supported by any evidence at all. Besides this, the issue contested herein is already decided in favour of the assessee in preceding years upon which the CIT(A) has relied upon in the order. There is no distinguishing facts pointed out by the Ld. DR. Therefore, Ground No. 2 is allowed. Disallowance of interest u/s 40(b) paid to partner of the firm - HELD THAT:- We are restoring the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer to calculate the i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mercantile (P) Ltd., M/s Grant Thornton India (P) Ltd. and M/s Walker Chandiok Associates ignoring the submissions and evidences placed on record. Thus the disallowance so made should be deleted. 3. The CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the disallowance of interest u/s 40(b) of the Act of ₹ 1,53,887/- paid to partner of the firm ignoring the fact that the partnership deed clearly provides for allowance of such interest and the said issue has been examined in earlier years wherein the same has been duly allowed to the assessee firm. Thus the disallowance so made should be deleted I.T.A. No. 2310/DEL/2018 (A.Y 2014-15) 1. The CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the disallowance of an amoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing 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 the disallowance of an amount of TDS payable of ₹ 30,03,217/- outstanding on 31st March, 2012 was paid within the due date prescribed by the Act. But the CIT(A) ignored this and confirmed the addition of the Assessing Officer observing that the same is not allowable deduction as the same was not paid during the year as the assessee followed cash system of accounting. The Ld. AR submitted that no addition on this ground was made till Assessment Year 2010-11 by the Revenue and the additions were first time made in Assessment Year 2011-12, where ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 perused all the relevant materials available on record. After going through the evidences placed before the Assessing Officer, it can be seen that the assessee has given a plausible explanation. The Assessing Officer has made an estimated disallowance which is not supported by any evidence at all. Besides this, the issue contested herein is already decided in favour of the assessee in preceding years upon which the CIT(A) has relied upon in the order. There is no distinguishing facts pointed out by the Ld. DR. Therefore, Ground N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mount 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 calculated in view of the provisions of section 40(b)(iv) of the Act and as per the method given in the partnership deed. The Assessing Officer appears to have wrongly calculated. The contention of the assessee that there is no loss to revenue because the partner has shown this amount as his income and both the partner and the partnership firm are assessable in the same bracket of 30%, is not acceptable for the reason that the intention of the IT Act is to collect tax from the right person as per law. The As ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
