9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (6) TMI 1036 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance u/s 14A - Held that - We find the Tribunal in assessee s own case for A.Y. 2009-10 had restricted such disallowance to ₹ 76,951/- which includes ₹ 26,951/- towards Demat charges. Since the facts of the impugned assessment year are identical to the facts decided by the Tribunal in case of the assessee for different assessment years, therefore, respectfully following the decision of the Tribunal as well as the order of the AO for A.Yrs. 2005-06 and 2006-07, we restrict such disallowance to ₹ 50,000/-. We accordingly set aside the order of the CIT(A) and direct the AO to sustain addition of ₹ 50,000/- u/s. 14A. Taxability of interest on Non Performing Assets - whether provisions of RBI Act cannot override the provision of Sec.145 of I.T ACT? - Held that - We find the issue of taxability of interest on Non Performing Assets has been decided in favour of the assessee by the order of the Tribunal in assessee s own case for A.Y. 2007-08 Disallowance u/s.43B - Held that - Disallowance u/s.43B cannot be made on account of delayed payment of Employees contribution to PF and ESI, if the same has been deposited before the due date of filing of the return u/s.139(1) of the I.T. Act. Since the assessee in the instant case has admittedly deposited the Employees contribution to PF before the due date of filing of the return u/s.139(1) of the I.T. Act, therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) deleting the addition made by the AO
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act. 2. Taxability of interest on Non-Performing Assets (NPAs). 3. Delayed payment of Employees' contribution to Provident Fund (PF). 4. Deduction in respect of Employee Stock Options (ESOP) expenditure. 5. Amortization of premium on investments. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act: - The assessee contested the disallowance under Section 14A, arguing that it should be limited to ?50,000 as in previous years. The Revenue contended that the disallowance should be ?23,40,344, calculated as 10% of the exempt income. - The Tribunal noted that in previous years, the disallowance had been consistently restricted to ?50,000, including decisions for A.Y. 2007-08 to 2010-11. Consequently, the Tribunal directed that the disallowance for the current year should also be restricted to ?50,000, dismissing the Revenue's grounds and partly allowing the assessee's appeal. 2. Taxability of Interest on Non-Performing Assets (NPAs): - The assessee, a Non-Banking Finance Company (NBFC), did not recognize interest income on NPAs following RBI guidelines. The AO added ?1,76,99,057 as interest on NPAs. The CIT(A) deleted this addition, following his own order for A.Y. 2007-08, which was upheld by the Tribunal. - The Tribunal, referencing its earlier decisions and the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, affirmed that interest on NPAs classified as per RBI guidelines cannot be assessed on an accrual basis. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's grounds for A.Y. 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, and 2011-12. 3. Delayed Payment of Employees' Contribution to Provident Fund (PF): - The AO made an addition of ?4,30,854 due to the delayed payment of Employees' contribution to PF. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, citing the decisions of the Hon'ble Gujarat and Bombay High Courts, which held that such contributions are allowable if paid before the due date of filing the return. - The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, referencing consistent views from Coordinate Benches and the Hon'ble Bombay High Court decisions, and dismissed the Revenue's grounds. 4. Deduction in Respect of Employee Stock Options (ESOP) Expenditure: - The assessee raised a new ground in the Cross Objection, seeking a deduction for ESOP expenditure. The Tribunal had previously remitted a similar issue for A.Y. 2010-11 to the AO for consideration in light of the Special Bench decision in Biocon Limited. - Following the same reasoning, the Tribunal admitted the ground and restored the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee's grounds for statistical purposes. 5. Amortization of Premium on Investments: - The assessee also sought a deduction for the amortization of premium on investments. This issue was similarly raised and remitted to the AO for A.Y. 2010-11. - The Tribunal, following its earlier decision, restored the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee's ground for statistical purposes. Conclusion: - ITA No. 2128/PN/2014 filed by the assessee is partly allowed. - ITA Nos. 2094 to 2097/PN/2014 filed by the Revenue are dismissed. - The Cross Objection No. 22/PN/2016 filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 03-06-2016.
|
