2016 (7) TMI 1267 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance of leave encashment u/s.43B(f) - AO while computing book profit under section 115 JB of the Act also added the same to the profit of the assessee - Held that - Such disallowance is in accordance with the provisions of section 43B(f) of the Act. Section 43B(f) of the Act clearly provides that any sum payable by the assessee as employer in lieu of any leave at the credit of his employee shall be allowed in which the sum is actually paid before the due date of filing of the return as per section 139(1) of the Act. Hence this issue is held in favour of the Revenue. However while determining the book profit under section 115JB of the Act the provision made for leave encashment has to be allowed as deduction because as per Explanation I (c) ascertained liabilities has to be given effect for arriving at the book profit. Therefore the profit any disallowance made under the normal provisions of the Act also cannot be given effect to for arriving at the Book Profit for the purpose of Section 115JB of the Act. See M/s. Beach Minerals Company P.Ltd. Vs. ACIT 2015 (8) TMI 1031 - ITAT CHENNAI Accordingly this issue allowed in favour of the assessee TDS u/s 194H - Applicability of Section 40(a)(ia) on credit card commission - Held that - In the case of the assessee the assessee is not making the commission payment to the bank but receiving its due after deduction of the commission hence the provisions of section 194H of the Act will not be applicable. See Tata Teleservices Ltd. Versus DCIT 2013 (1) TMI 480 - ITAT BANGALORE - Decided in favour of the assessee

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of leave encashment under Section 43B(f) and Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act.
2. Addition under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act.
3. Applicability of Section 40(a)(ia) on credit card commission payments.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Disallowance of Leave Encashment under Section 43B(f) and Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act:

During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) observed that the assessee had debited amounts for leave encashment in its profit & loss account, which were unpaid as of the return filing date. The AO invoked Section 43B(f) and disallowed these amounts as deductions. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] upheld this disallowance, noting that Section 43B mandates actual payment for certain expenses, including leave encashment, to be deductible. The CIT(A) referenced the Supreme Court's stay on the Kolkata High Court's decision in Exide Industries Ltd v. Union of India, which had challenged the applicability of Section 43B(f). The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)’s decision, as the disallowance aligns with Section 43B(f). However, for book profit under Section 115JB, the Tribunal ruled that the provision for leave encashment should be allowed as a deduction, as it is an ascertained liability. Thus, the issue was partly allowed in favor of the assessee.

2. Addition under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act:

The AO made additions under Section 14A read with Rule 8D, which the CIT(A) upheld with a modification to exclude investments in subsidiary companies. The CIT(A) followed the Chennai Tribunal's decision in a prior year, which excluded subsidiary investments from Rule 8D calculations. The Tribunal affirmed this approach but directed the AO to verify if the investments were for strategic purposes and funded by interest-free resources, as clarified in the Rane Holdings Ltd. case. The Tribunal also referenced the Chennai Bench's decision in Beach Minerals Company P. Ltd., which held that disallowances under Section 14A should not affect book profit computations under Section 115JB. Consequently, the issue was remitted back to the AO for verification and appropriate action.

3. Applicability of Section 40(a)(ia) on Credit Card Commission Payments:

The AO disallowed credit card commission payments under Section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS. The assessee argued that it received payments net of commission from banks, thus not making any commission payments itself. The CIT(A) sided with the assessee, citing the Bangalore Tribunal's decision in Tata Teleservices Ltd. v. DCIT, which categorized such payments as bank charges, not commission. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the assessee received amounts after commission deductions by banks, making Section 194H inapplicable. Therefore, the issue was decided against the Revenue.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeals of both the assessee and the Revenue, providing specific directions for re-computation and verification by the AO. The decision was pronounced on July 1, 2016.