9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Interest paid to Directors on their current account under s. 40A(8) 2. Withdrawal of interest already allowed and paid under ss. 214 & 244(1A) 3. Incorrect levy of interest under s. 139 and 215 4. Disallowance of expenses for various categories 5. Appeal outcomes for different assessment years Analysis: 1. The primary issue in this judgment revolves around the interest paid to Directors on their current account and whether it falls under the purview of s. 40A(8). The Tribunal, citing a Special Bench decision, held that interest paid on Directors' current accounts is considered as deposits and, therefore, falls under the provisions of s. 40A(8). Consequently, the interest paid is rightly disallowable to the extent of 15 percent, ruling against the assessee and in favor of the Department. 2. Another issue raised for the assessment year 1978-79 pertains to the withdrawal of interest already allowed and paid under sections 214 and 244(1A). The Tribunal found that the interest was wrongly paid to the assessee, and since there was no refund due, the CIT(A) rightfully withdrew the interest. Hence, the Tribunal did not find merit in the grounds raised by the assessee on this issue. 3. Regarding the assessment year 1979-80, the dispute centered on the incorrect levy of interest under sections 139 and 215 on the assessee. The Tribunal, based on a previous order, emphasized that interest cannot be recovered without specific mention in the order itself. As the demand was raised through a calculation sheet without proper mention in the order, the Tribunal allowed the ground of the assessee and deleted the interest. 4. For the subsequent assessment years, the Tribunal noted that the issue of interest had not been pressed as relief had already been provided by the Income Tax Officer, rendering the matter infructuous. 5. In the assessment years 1981-82 and 1982-83, the Tribunal addressed the disallowance of various expenses claimed by the assessee, including travelling expenses, telephone expenses, general expenses, vehicle maintenance, and bad debts. The disallowances were upheld based on insufficient details provided by the assessee, except for bad debts, which was deemed infructuous. The Tribunal upheld the disallowances for the respective years based on the grounds mentioned. 6. In conclusion, the appeals of the assessee for the assessment years 1978-79, 1980-81, 1981-82, and 1982-83 were dismissed, while the appeal for the assessment year 1979-80 was partly allowed based on the Tribunal's findings on the issues discussed.
|
