9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (2) TMI 425 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance of commission expenses - HELD THAT - We find that the genuineness of claim of similar type of commission expenses was in challenge before this Tribunal in assessee s own case for Assessment Year 2011-12 wherein the Tribunal after considering the relevant facts which are identical to the facts of the instant appeal before us deleted the disallowance of commission holding them to be wholly and exclusively for business purposes. Disallowance of bad debts - AO disallowed this claim observing that the alleged amount was a write off of outstanding balance of loans and advances and since the assessee is not engaged in the business of providing loans and advances such claim cannot be allowed as Bad Debt - HELD THAT - As decided in TRF. LTD. 2010 (2) TMI 211 - SUPREME COURT bad debt which the assessee company wants to claim as an expenditure needs to be reduced from sundry debtors. As per the accounting principles when at the end of the financial year unrealised sales are shown under the head sundry debtors. In other words sales effected but consideration not received up to the end of financial year are shown as sundry debtors. From going through the finding of Ld. CIT(A) we find that no efforts have been made by Ld. CIT(A) to examine the fact that whether the alleged amount claimed to be bad debts by the assessee are in the nature of sales made in the preceding years, or loans and advances . If the alleged amount are part of sales effected during the year or in the preceding year and they have become bad and doubtful, such claim may be allowed if the assessee has written off in its books of accounts crediting the customer account but in case it is a loans and advances which have become bad then the assessee will have to claim it under the head of business loss by showing that the same were given in the course of business. Since Ld. CIT(A) has not examined this aspect we restore the issue for reconsideration. Allowability of brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation - HELD THAT - The return of income of preceding years from which the business losses and unabsorbed depreciation loss are being brought forward are also not placed on record. No specific finding is given in this regard by Ld. A.O. Under these given facts and circumstances of the case we are of the considered view that the issue needs to be set aside to the file of Ld. A.O for afresh examination. In case the assessee has legally and rightfully claimed the set off of unabsorbed business loss and unabsorbed depreciation loss and the return of income of the years in which such loss was shown have been filed on the due dates u/s 139(1) of the Act then the assessee deserves to get the benefit of set off. Ground No.1 of the revenue is thus allowed for statistical purposes. Disallowance on account of belated payment of ESIC and EPF contribution - some delay on the part of the assessee in depositing the ESIC and EPF contribution of employee - HELD THAT - This is not in dispute that the total amount of employees contribution was deposited in Treasury before the due date of filing of return of income i.e. 30.11.2014 and even if employees contribution is deposited before due date of filing of return, same is allowable. Therefore, the addition made by the AO is deleted. Therefore, the appeal on this ground is Allowed.See M/S. ALOM EXTRUSIONS LIMITED 2009 (11) TMI 27 - SUPREME COURT Disallowance u/s 40a(ia) - non deduction of tax at source on the alleged amount of interest - HELD THAT - As assessee has not shown expenditure in its Profit Loss account. Since no such expenditure has been claimed by the assessee against the revenue for the year and this fact remains undisputed at the end of both the parties, then in such situation the disallowance made u/s 40a(ia) of the Act is uncalled for. We thus find no reason to interfere in the finding of Ld. CIT(A) who has rightly deleted the disallowance based on the facts of the case.
Issues Involved:
1. Allowance of brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation. 2. Deletion of disallowance of bad debts. 3. Deletion of disallowance of commission expenses. 4. Deletion of disallowance of expenses under section 40(a)(ia). 5. Deletion of disallowance of belated payment of ESIC and EPF contributions. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Allowance of Brought Forward Losses and Unabsorbed Depreciation: The Revenue challenged the CIT(A)'s decision to allow brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation of ?26,63,698/- for AY 2012-13. The Tribunal found that the computation of income for AY 2012-13 and the returns of preceding years were not on record. The Tribunal directed the AO to re-examine the issue afresh, ensuring the set-off is legally and rightfully claimed, and the returns of the relevant years were filed on time under section 139(1) of the Act. 2. Deletion of Disallowance of Bad Debts: For both AY 2012-13 and AY 2014-15, the Revenue contested the deletion of disallowance of bad debts amounting to ?58,24,000/- each year. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in T.R.F. Ltd v. CIT, which allows bad debts if written off in the books. However, the Tribunal emphasized the need to distinguish whether the amounts were sales or loans and advances. The Tribunal remanded the issue back to CIT(A) for verification of whether the amounts were part of sales or loans and advances and to decide accordingly. 3. Deletion of Disallowance of Commission Expenses: The Tribunal addressed the disallowance of commission expenses of ?1,08,95,467/- for AY 2012-13 and ?1,03,81,727/- for AY 2014-15. It found that the issue was previously decided in favor of the assessee for AY 2011-12, where similar commission expenses were deemed wholly and exclusively for business purposes. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance, as the Departmental Representative failed to present any contrary evidence. 4. Deletion of Disallowance of Expenses under Section 40(a)(ia): For AY 2014-15, the Revenue challenged the deletion of disallowance of ?25,95,609/- under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The AO had disallowed this amount, alleging it included interest payments without TDS. However, the CIT(A) found that the assessee did not claim this amount as an expenditure in its profit and loss account. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, as the disallowance was uncalled for since no such expenditure was claimed by the assessee. 5. Deletion of Disallowance of Belated Payment of ESIC and EPF Contributions: For AY 2014-15, the Revenue contested the deletion of disallowance of ?4,17,302/- for belated payment of ESIC and EPF contributions. The Tribunal noted that the contributions were deposited before the due date of filing the return of income. Citing the ITAT Indore's decision in Asst. CIT v. Indira Export Pvt Ltd., the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance, as the contributions were made before the due date for filing the return. Conclusion: The Tribunal partly allowed the Revenue's appeals for statistical purposes, remanding certain issues for further verification while upholding the CIT(A)'s decisions on others. The order was pronounced in the open court on 09.02.2021.
|
