9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (5) TMI 536 - HC - Income TaxPrior period expenditure disallowed - Appellant s arguments are that the AO did not consider that as per the accounting policy being followed by the appellant the expenses below Rs.5, 000/- are always accounted for in the year in which they are incurred - Held that - The Tribunal followed the decision in the assessee s own case for the assessment year 1984-85 to allow the expenses - Decided in favour of assessee. Deductions under Section 80P(2)(d) - Held that - There is no dispute that the assessee was entitled to claim deduction in respect of the dividend received from other co-operative societies as per provisions of Section 80P(2)(d) in case it was so able to prove the same on record. We do not see any infirmity or perversity in the order of the CIT(A) and the Tribunal in this regard whereby the matter has been remitted back to the Assessing Officer to verify the exact amount of the claim from Annexure 9 of the Tax Audit Report and allow the same as per law. The contentions raised by the Revenue stand rejected. Indirect expenses related to PSS operations - Held that - It is not the case of the Revenue that the expenses had not been incurred by the assessee for the purpose of business or that they are not genuine - CIT(A) and the Tribunal rightly recorded the gross impropriety committed by the AO in assuming indirect expenses on proportionate basis to the total sale of the assessee - It has been seen from the tenor of the scheme of PSS that the assessee was only entitled to reimbursement of the direct expenses as prescribed by GOI and this arrangement/scheme is not challenged either by the Revenue or by the Special Auditor - Decided in favour of assesee.
Issues:
1. Correctness of Tribunal's order in deleting addition made by AO on proportionate basis out of total indirect expenses related to PSS operations. 2. Deletion of addition made by AO on account of disallowance of prior period expenses. 3. Direction given by Tribunal to AO to allow deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. Analysis: Issue 1: Correctness of Tribunal's order on proportionate basis of indirect expenses related to PSS operations - The AO disallowed deduction on indirect expenses related to PSS operations due to lack of details on allocation. - The assessee carried out PSS operations as a nodal agency for the Government of India, with profits and losses to be borne by the government. - The AO calculated indirect expenses related to PSS operations on a proportionate basis, initially at 68.19% and later reduced to 5.87%. - The CIT(A) disagreed with the proportionate disallowance, stating that the expenses were incurred for business expediency and furthering the business objectives. - The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing that the expenses were part of normal business activities and genuine, thus no disallowance was warranted. - The Tribunal found no perversity in the orders and dismissed the appeals. Issue 2: Deletion of addition on account of disallowance of prior period expenses - The CIT(A) and Tribunal upheld deletion of addition made by AO on prior period expenses, following precedents and holding that such expenses could not be disallowed. - The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, confirming the order of the CIT(A) on this issue. Issue 3: Direction to allow deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act - The AO disallowed deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) regarding dividend income received from co-operative societies. - The CIT(A) directed the AO to allow the deduction, citing precedents and clarifying the eligibility of the assessee for the deduction. - The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing that the assessee was entitled to the deduction under the Act. - The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the orders of the CIT(A) and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. In conclusion, the High Court upheld the decisions of the CIT(A) and the Tribunal on all three issues, dismissing the appeals filed by the Revenue. The judgments were based on the legal provisions, precedents, and the specific circumstances of each issue, affirming the correctness of the orders made in favor of the assessee.
|
