9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (12) TMI 875 - AT - Income TaxTDS u/s 194C - failure to deduct TDS u/s 194C on subcontract payments addition u/s 40(a)(ia) - Held that - CIT(A) has verified the salary register submitted by the assessee in the form of letter, however from the order, it is not clear whether it is verified thoroughly with the data sheets, programme sheets and agreements with the employees, if any. Ld. AR has confirmed that this information is available with the assessee to prove the genuineness of the transaction. Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition relying on the case of Merilyn Shipping (2012 (4) TMI 290 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM). However, this decision was reversed by the Hon ble Supreme Court and further, this transaction needs verification at the AO level, accordingly, this issue is remitted to the file of the AO to verify the genuineness of the transaction and allow the same as per the provisions of law. Assessee may be given opportunity of being heard. Accordingly, grounds raised by the revenue on this are allowed for statistical purposes. Disallowance u/s 14A - Held that - We direct the AO to recalculate the disallowance as per rule 8D as per the guidelines given above in the case of Transport Corporation of India 2016 (11) TMI 245 - ITAT HYDERABAD and calculate the disallowance of expenditure under rule 8D(2)(ii) & (iii) taking the average investment from which the exempt income is received. By calculating as per the above direction, in case, the disallowance arrived u/s 14A is less than the disallowance made by Assessee, the disallowance made by the assessee may be sustained. Accordingly, ground raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of ?50,80,764/- under Section 40(a)(ia) for non-compliance with TDS provisions. 2. Disallowance under Section 14A related to exempt income. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Disallowance of ?50,80,764/- under Section 40(a)(ia) for non-compliance with TDS provisions: The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order, which deleted the disallowance of ?50,80,764/- under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer (AO) had disallowed this amount on the grounds that the assessee failed to deduct TDS on subcontract payments. The assessee argued that the payments were for individual technical services contracted for the Socio Economic and Caste Census (SECC) project and were below the TDS exemption limit. The CIT(A) accepted this explanation, noting that the payments were to individuals and below the taxable limit, and thus deleted the disallowance. The Revenue contended that the CIT(A) admitted additional evidence without giving the AO an opportunity to verify it, violating Rule 46A. The CIT(A) relied on the decision in the case of Merilyn Shipping & Transport, which was later reversed by the Supreme Court. The Tribunal found merit in the Revenue's argument and remitted the issue back to the AO for verification of the genuineness of the transactions, directing that the assessee be given an opportunity to present their case. 2. Disallowance under Section 14A related to exempt income: During the assessment, the AO noticed that the assessee had made investments in equities, earning exempt dividend income. The AO disallowed ?1,54,453/- under Section 14A, applying Rule 8D, in addition to the assessee's suo-moto disallowance of ?1,66,096/-. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's calculation, agreeing that both direct and indirect expenditures should be disallowed under Section 14A. The Tribunal, however, noted that the assessee did not provide a computation in support of their disallowance under Section 14A. Referring to a similar case (Transport Corporation of India Ltd.), the Tribunal directed the AO to recalculate the disallowance as per Rule 8D, considering only the investments that generated exempt income. The Tribunal instructed that if the recalculated disallowance was less than the assessee's disallowance, the latter should be sustained. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the Revenue's appeal for statistical purposes, remitting the issue of disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) back to the AO for verification. The assessee’s cross-objection related to Section 14A disallowance was partly allowed for statistical purposes, directing the AO to recalculate the disallowance as per the guidelines provided. The final pronouncement was made in open court on 13th December 2017.
|
