TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 786X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this ground raised by the Revenue is devoid of merit and, therefore, the same is dismissed. Disallowance of commission expenses - assessee-company did not provide any information on what basis commission was paid and also questioned whether TDS was deducted and also the commission expenses increased during this assessment year comparing with the earlier assessment years - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) held that the disallowance made by the AO without making any enquiries and without brining any material on record is unjustified. There is ample material to show that the sales were effected through selling agents and further the assessee also submitted proof of TDS to the commission agents, where major portion in US$ and exports of goods. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO was deleted. Before us CIT-DR could not place before us any contra views or documents against the finding of the CIT(A). Therefore, this ground raised by the Revenue is devoid of merit and, therefore, the same is hereby dismissed. Nature of expenses - legal and professional charges - HELD THAT:- No legal infirmity in the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A), the expenditure incurred relating to sale of the immovab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by any authority of State Government for the purpose of payment of stamp duty in respect of such transfer, the value so adopted shall be deemed to be the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of such transfer, for the purpose of section 48 of the Act. Plain reading of the section makes it clear that the valuation is not only for land or building or both. In this case, there is no reference about the under valuation of the building and therefore land alone is valued at Rs. 6.05 crores by the State Government Authority, therefore the CIT [A] is not correct in holding that 50C valuation is not applicable to building. The assessee has not produced the copy of the Valuation Report to ascertain the value determined towards land alone or also building, plant machinery. Therefore, the direction given by CIT[A] is against the provision of law and liable to be reversed and the order of the Ld AO is to be restored, but the cost of acquisition as on 1-4-1981 to be adopted. Thus, the Grounds of Appeal raised by the Revenue is allowed. - Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member And Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member For the Revenue : Shri S.N. Sopark ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /-instead of Rs. 25,00,000/-. 3. Ground No.1:- Late payment of contribution to PF amounting to Rs. 8,96,190/-. The Ld. Sr.DR Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar appearing for the Revenue submitted that this issue is squarely covered in favour of Revenue by the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services (P) Ltd. vs. CIT reported in (2022) 143 taxmann.com 178 (SC). Therefore, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer is liable to be sustained. 4. Per contra, Ld. Sr. Counsel Shri S.N. Soparkar appearing for the assessee drawn our attention to the assessment order where the Assessing Officer categorically mentioned that it is seen that employees contribution as well as employer s contribution towards PF amounting to Rs. 8,96,190/- has not been paid within the due date . Thus, the Ld.Sr.Counsel submitted that the Hon ble Supreme Court judgement deals with the case of employees contribution paid belatedly and not about the employer s contribution. However, the Ld.Sr. Counsel fairly admitted that the assessee also does not have the break-up of employer s contribution and employees contribution. But submitted that equal amount of contributions were made by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erial to show that the sales were effected through selling agents and further the assessee also submitted proof of TDS to the commission agents, where major portion in US$ and exports of goods. Therefore, the disallowance of Rs. 55,62,090/- made by the Assessing Officer was deleted. Before us Ld.CIT-DR could not place before us any contra views or documents against the finding of the Ld.CIT(A). Therefore, this ground raised by the Revenue is devoid of merit and, therefore, the same is hereby dismissed. 9. Ground No.4: Disallowance of legal and professional charges of Rs. 2,79,418/-. The Assessing Officer disallowed the legal and professional charges of Rs. 2,79,418/- which is relating to sale of an immovable property and valuation of shares, which are capital in nature. The assessee claimed before the Ld.CIT(A) that the expenditure of Rs. 2,20,150/- is relating to sale of the immovable property, therefore this expense is to be allowed while calculating the capital gains. The Ld.CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to allow this expense of Rs. 2,20,150/- while calculating the capital gains as an allowable expense. 9.1. We do not find any legal infirmity in the order passed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nces in estimating the cost at Rs. 25 lakhs. Therefore, Ld CIT[A] accepted the assessee s submission of the Government Approved Valuer s Report, and directed the AO to adopt the fair market value of the land as on 01/04/1981 at Rs. 1,17,40,000/- for the purpose of computing the capital gain and thereby allowed the assessee s appeal. 11.1. We do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A). The Assessing Officer without making any reference u/s. 55A of the Act, suo moto estimated the cost of the land as on 01/04/1981 at Rs. 25 lakhs, which is legally not permissible under the Act. Whereas the assessee has submitted Government Approved Valuer s Report valuing the land as on 01/04/1981 at Rs. 1,17,40,000/- for computing the capital gains. Thus, ground raised by the Revenue is devoid of merit and the same is hereby dismissed. 12. In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No.1298/ Ahd/2014 for AY 2004-05 is partly allowed. 13. ITA No. 1297/Ahd/2014 (for AY 2004-05) the Grounds of Appeal filed by the Revenue are as follows:- 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in directing the Assessing Off ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t for the purpose of payment of stamp duty in respect of such transfer, the value so adopted shall be deemed to be the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of such transfer, for the purpose of section 48 of the Act. Plain reading of the section makes it clear that the valuation is not only for land or building or both. In this case, there is no reference about the under valuation of the building and therefore land alone is valued at Rs. 6.05 crores by the State Government Authority, therefore the LdCIT [A] is not correct in holding that 50C valuation is not applicable to building. The assessee has not produced the copy of the Valuation Report to ascertain the value determined towards land alone or also building, plant machinery. Therefore, the direction given by Ld CIT[A] is against the provision of law and liable to be reversed and the order of the Ld AO is to be restored, but the cost of acquisition as on 1-4-1981 as Rs. 1,17,40,000/- to be adopted. Thus, the Grounds of Appeal raised by the Revenue is allowed. 17. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No.1297/ Ahd/2014 for AY 2004-05 is partly allowed. 18. In the combined result ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
