9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (7) TMI 700 - AT - Income TaxAcceptance of Revised computation of income without filing a revised return - case of the assessee that the return was filed based on provisional un-audited accounts - on finalization of such accounts a revised computation of income was prepared which was made known to the authorities with a request to consider the same prior to the issuance of notice u/s 143(2) - HELD THAT - It is an admitted fact that appellant has revised its income on its own after finalization of accounts. We have also carefully considered the order passed by CIT(A) who has taken into consideration the entire aspect of the matter. When the AO has not accepted the revised computation the disallowance and additions ought not to have been made on such revised income of the assessee; this particular aspect of the matter was considered by the Learned CIT(A) while deleting addition made by the AO. The reasoning given by the CIT(A) is according to us just and proper without any infirmity so as to warrant interference. The question is accordingly answered in the affirmative i.e. in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. Addition on account of rates and taxes - CIT-A deleted the addition - HELD THAT - CIT(A) has allowed such expenses under the head rates and taxes in terms of the provision of section 43B of the Act in those year under consideration. The assessee has claimed the expenses under the head rates and taxes in terms of the provision of section 43B. The details of payment made before the due date of filing of return which was claimed as allowable expenses were also placed on record by the assessee. AO while holding such explanation rendered by the assessee not acceptable also invoked section 14A for the purpose of computing total income of the assessee indicating that no deduction shall be allowed in respect of expenditure incurred by the assessee in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under this Act. CIT(A) following the same deleted such addition which in our considered view is just and proper following the rule of consistency which has been failed to be controverted by the Revenue. Hence this ground of appeal preferred by the Revenue is found to be devoid of any merit and thus dismissed. Addition u/s 14A - recording of satisfaction by AO - HELD THAT - We find the assessee s case is squarely covered factually and legally in PCIT-vs-Shreno Ltd. 2018 (12) TMI 1145 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT hence the assessee is entitled to relief as claimed for which was rightly allowed by the CIT(A) by deleting the addition made by the Learned AO without any infirmity so as to warrant interference. The question is accordingly answered in the affirmative i.e. in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. Addition on account of software development expenses - allowable revenue expenditure - HELD THAT - As decided in N. J. India Invest Ltd. 2013 (7) TMI 738 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT issue decided in favour of the assessee. However the Learned DR failed to controvert such contention made by the Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the assessee. It is a settled principle of law that the expenditure in question is Revenue in nature and thus allowable as decided in different pronouncement including in the matter of N. J. India Invest Ltd. as relied upon by the Learned AR. Hence we find no infirmity in the order passed by the Learned CIT in deleting such addition relying upon the ratio laid down as above. Thus Revenue s appeal is found to be devoid of any merit hence dismissed. Addition on account of depreciation on printers and other accessories - @15% OR 60% - HELD THAT - As perused the relevant materials available on record. We have carefully considered the order passed in the matter of BSES Yamuna Corporation Ltd. 2010 (8) TMI 58 - DELHI HIGH COURT . We find that the matter is squarely covered by the ratio laid down therein and hence we find no infirmity in the order passed by the Learned CIT(A) in deleting the addition of 3, 86, 549/- as made by the Learned AO by allowing only 15% instead of 60% as claimed by the assessee. Disallowance u/s 14A made as considered while calculating income u/s 115JB - HELD THAT - CIT(A) deleted such addition made by the Learned AO to the tune of 47, 23, 579/- and disallowance of 1, 00, 000/- u/s 14A made by the appellant has been directed to be considered while calculating income u/s 115JB by the Learned AO which has been challenged before us by the Revenue. The explanation given by the Learned CIT(A) in passing such direction upon the Learned AO is according to us justified in the present facts Disallowance of contribution to employee s provident fund - HELD THAT - As per assessee that the issue be remitted to the file of the Learned AO for verification of such contention made by the assessee and to grant relief thereof. DR however has failed to controvert such contention made by the representative of the assessee. Hence we set aside the issue to the file of the Learned AO for verification of the same upon considering the evidence on record and also considering the evidences which the assessee may choose to file at the time of hearing of the matter and to pass orders in accordance with law positively upon affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. In the result assessee s ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Accrual of income - addition on account of interest income - HELD THAT - The interest income earned from the differences of GMR GSFS and SBI was ultimately added by the Learned AO to the income of the assessee on the ground that both the parties have confirmed the correctness of payment of amount and deduction of TDS. In appeal the Learned CIT(A) restricted it to GSFS and SBI. As we find from the records as well as the orders impugned before us that in support of recording the assessee has reiterated his plea that the assessee company booked its income as per books of accounts and the policies regularly followed by the company. However no supporting documents has been placed by the assessee either before the Learned AO or before the first appellate authority showing that the amount received from GSFS and SBI was offered as income though TDS has been claimed by the assessee and hence we do not find any merit in the AR s submission on this issue for deletion of such addition on the basis of the judgment passed in the matter of DCIT-vs-Yahoo India Pvt. Ltd. 2016 (1) TMI 1129 - ITAT MUMBAI for A.Y. 2008-09. We therefore confirm the addition made by the authorities below and dismiss the ground of appeal of the assessee. Disallowance of belated contribution to Employees Provident Fund - HELD THAT - Jurisdictional High Court in the matter of CIT-vs-GSRTC Ltd. 2014 (1) TMI 502 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT in view of the provision laid down u/s 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) total sum was disallowed since the said sum was credited by the assessee to the employee s accounts in the relevant fund after the due date prescribed in the concern Act which was confirmed by the First Appellate Authority. - Decided against assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Allowing revised computation of income without filing a revised return. 2. Deleting addition on account of rates and taxes. 3. Deleting addition invoking section 14A of the Income Tax Act. 4. Deleting addition on account of software development expenses. 5. Deleting addition on account of depreciation on printers and other accessories. 6. Deleting addition on disallowance while calculating income under section 115JB. 7. Disallowance of contribution to employee’s provident fund. 8. Addition on account of interest income. 9. Disallowance under section 14A while calculating income under section 115JB. 10. Disallowance of belated contribution to Employees Provident Fund. Detailed Analysis: 1. Allowing Revised Computation of Income Without Filing a Revised Return: The revenue challenged the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the revised computation of income. The assessee filed the original return based on provisional accounts and later revised the income upwards after finalizing the accounts. The AO disallowed the revised income as it was not filed through a revised return. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, and the tribunal upheld this decision, stating that the AO's disallowance was contradictory since the AO made additions based on the revised income. The appeal by the revenue was dismissed. 2. Deleting Addition on Account of Rates and Taxes: The AO disallowed ?45,12,220 claimed by the assessee towards rates and taxes, which was deleted by the CIT(A). The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the expenditure was recurring and did not create any new fixed assets. The appeal by the revenue was dismissed. 3. Deleting Addition Invoking Section 14A of the Income Tax Act: The AO disallowed ?47,23,579 under section 14A, which was deleted by the CIT(A) based on a judgment by the Jurisdictional High Court. The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the assessee had already disallowed ?1,00,000 towards expenses related to exempt income. The appeal by the revenue was dismissed. 4. Deleting Addition on Account of Software Development Expenses: The AO treated the software expenses of ?49,635 as capital expenditure and allowed depreciation at 12.50%. The CIT(A) treated it as revenue expenditure, relying on a judgment by the Madras High Court. The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the expenditure was revenue in nature. The appeal by the revenue was dismissed. 5. Deleting Addition on Account of Depreciation on Printers and Other Accessories: The AO allowed 15% depreciation on printers and scanners, treating them as office equipment. The CIT(A) allowed 60% depreciation, treating them as computer peripherals. The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, relying on a judgment by the Delhi High Court. The appeal by the revenue was dismissed. 6. Deleting Addition on Disallowance While Calculating Income Under Section 115JB: The AO added ?48,23,579 while calculating book profit under section 115JB. The CIT(A) deleted this addition and directed the AO to consider the disallowance of ?1,00,000 made by the assessee. The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision. The appeal by the revenue was dismissed. 7. Disallowance of Contribution to Employee’s Provident Fund: The AO disallowed ?3,35,551 towards Provident Fund contributions made beyond the due date. The CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance. The tribunal remitted the issue to the AO for verification, noting that the payment was made within the grace period. The appeal by the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes. 8. Addition on Account of Interest Income: The AO added interest income from GSFS and SBI, which was not booked by the assessee. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition. The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the assessee did not provide supporting documents. The appeal by the assessee was dismissed. 9. Disallowance Under Section 14A While Calculating Income Under Section 115JB: The AO disallowed ?51,61,079 under section 14A while calculating income under section 115JB. The CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance. The tribunal deleted the disallowance, relying on a judgment by the Special Bench of ITAT at Delhi, which stated that section 14A cannot be applied for computing book profit under section 115JB. The appeal by the assessee was allowed. 10. Disallowance of Belated Contribution to Employees Provident Fund: The AO disallowed ?83,651 towards late payment of Provident Fund contributions. The CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance. The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, relying on a judgment by the Jurisdictional High Court. The appeal by the assessee was dismissed. Conclusion: The revenue's appeals were dismissed, and the assessee's appeals were partly allowed. The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decisions on various grounds, including revised computation of income, rates and taxes, section 14A disallowance, software expenses, depreciation on printers, and Provident Fund contributions. The tribunal also remitted one issue to the AO for verification.
|
