9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (10) TMI 668 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) - the expenditure / payment pertains to earlier year - the Tribunal has given a finding that the deduction on account of expenditure acquired on plot for use by workers is to be allowed in the year(s) in which the plots are finally transferred to the workers, the Assessing Officer has the power, and therefore the inherent corresponding duty, under section 153(3) of the Act to recompute the income of that subsequent year to give effect to Tribunal s finding. under section 14A - the issue is now decided in favour of the assessee by the judgment in the case of Godrej and Boyce Limited vs. ACIT (2010 (8) TMI 77 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT), holding that the provisions of section 14A are applicable in such circumstances and the disallowance has to be worked out by the AO on some reasonable basis. Conveyance, traveling expenses, repairs, stationary, misc. expenses, office expenses and presentation expenses - find that the only reason of impugned disallowance is that all the expenses are not supported by third party vouchers, but then that is hardly a reasonable ground for disallowing the expenses. The lack of third party vouchers per se cannot be reason enough for disallowance, but that is precisely the ground on which the CIT(A) has sustained the disallowance. - Claim of these expenditures allowed. commission - the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Smt. Varsha G. Salunke v DCIT,(2005 -TMI - 59416 - ITAT BOMBAY), and, therefore, we see no reasons to interfere in the findings of the CIT (A) in deleting the disallowance of Rs.42,87,733. Accordingly, this ground is dismissed. Loan processing fee -. The processing fees is in the nature of interest and for use of funds borrowed for the purposes of business, and, accordingly, it has to be allowed as deduction under section 36(1)(iii). The limitation under section 37(1) for disallowability of capital expenditure thus is not relevant in the present context. In The Assessing Officer was clearly in error in disallowing the same as capital expenditure, which was not even in the nature of capital expenditure anyway, and the CIT(A) rightly reversed the action of the Assessing Officer. We uphold the action of the CIT(A) and decline to interfere in the matter.
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Disallowance under section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Adhoc disallowance of 10% on various expenses. 4. Disallowance of 1/10th on account of motor car expenses and telephone expenses. 5. Deletion of addition on account of commission. 6. Deletion of addition on account of loan processing fee. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961: The assessee was aggrieved by the CIT(A)'s decision to uphold the disallowance of Rs. 8,44,613/- under section 40(a)(ia). The appellant-assessee had not paid the taxes by 31.3.2005, leading to the disallowance for the assessment year 2005-06. The assessee claimed the deduction for the assessment year 2006-07, but the CIT(A) held that the deduction should have been claimed in the assessment year 2005-06. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had found the deduction allowable for the assessment year 2005-06 and, therefore, it could not be allowed in the current year. The Tribunal suggested that the assessee might seek rectification under section 154 or revision under section 263. The Tribunal agreed with the authorities that the deduction could not be allowed in the present year and dismissed the ground of appeal. 2. Disallowance under section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961: The assessee contested the disallowance of Rs. 4,31,987 under section 14A. The Tribunal referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej and Boyce Limited vs. ACIT, which held that disallowance under section 14A should be worked out by the AO on a reasonable basis. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the matter to the AO for a fresh determination of the disallowance, allowing the ground for statistical purposes. 3. Adhoc disallowance of 10% on various expenses: The assessee challenged the adhoc disallowance of 10% amounting to Rs. 4,10,789 on account of conveyance, traveling expenses, repairs, stationary, miscellaneous expenses, office expenses, and presentation expenses. The AO had disallowed the expenses due to the lack of third-party vouchers. The Tribunal found that the lack of third-party vouchers alone was not a reasonable ground for disallowance and deleted the disallowance, allowing the ground of appeal. 4. Disallowance of 1/10th on account of motor car expenses and telephone expenses: The assessee did not raise specific arguments regarding this disallowance. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed this ground of appeal as not pressed. 5. Deletion of addition on account of commission: The revenue was aggrieved by the deletion of an addition of Rs. 42,87,133 made by the AO on account of commission. The Tribunal noted that the issue was covered by the Third Member decision of the Tribunal in the case of Smt. Varsha G. Salunke v DCIT, which was in favor of the assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance and dismissed the ground of appeal. 6. Deletion of addition on account of loan processing fee: The revenue contested the deletion of an addition of Rs. 2,42,202 on account of loan processing fee. The CIT(A) had followed the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of India Cements Ltd v CIT, which allowed such deductions. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the processing fee was in the nature of interest for business purposes and should be allowed as a deduction under section 36(1)(iii). The Tribunal dismissed the ground of appeal. Conclusion: The appeal filed by the assessee was partly allowed, while the appeal filed by the Assessing Officer was dismissed. The Tribunal provided detailed reasoning for each issue, ensuring that legal principles and precedents were appropriately applied.
|
