9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Allowability of deduction for bonus payment and provision for bonus. 2. Addition in the trading account. 3. Disallowance of Delhi branch loss. 4. Disallowance of depreciation on vehicle maintenance. 5. Disallowance of premises maintenance expenses. The judgment involves an appeal by an assessee-firm regarding the deduction of bonus payment and provision for bonus claimed in the original return of income for the assessment year 1989-90. The Assessing Officer made adjustments by adding certain amounts, including the bonus payment claimed. The assessee filed an application for rectification under section 154, stating that proof for the bonus payment was enclosed with the return. The CIT (A) deleted some additions but sustained the addition of the bonus payment due to the lack of evidence of payment filed with the return. The assessee appealed against this order. The assessment under section 143(3) was completed, and the CIT (A) again upheld the addition of the bonus payment. The assessee raised objections on various grounds, including the allowability of the bonus claim and other disallowances. Upon review, the Tribunal found that no evidence of bonus payment was filed with the return, leading to a dispute on the allowability of the deduction. The Tribunal analyzed the provisions of section 43B regarding the deduction of bonus payment, emphasizing the requirement of furnishing evidence of payment along with the return. It concluded that while it is convenient for tax authorities if evidence is filed with the return, strict compliance may not always be possible. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to allow the deduction of the bonus payment based on the evidence later provided by the assessee. The Tribunal also directed the allowance of another claimed deduction for bonus payment, supported by evidence of payment. Regarding the addition in the trading account, the Tribunal upheld the CIT (A)'s decision to set aside the issue for further verification by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal also affirmed the disallowance of Delhi branch loss after considering the details provided and the findings of the CIT (A). The disallowance of a portion of depreciation on vehicle maintenance and premises maintenance expenses was also upheld by the Tribunal based on the representations made by the parties and the lack of sufficient details provided. Consequently, one appeal was dismissed as infructuous, while another was partly allowed based on the Tribunal's findings on the various issues raised by the assessee. ---
|
