9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (8) TMI 480X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h a direction to examine the nature of the item-wise expenditure claimed by the assessee. Non deduction of tax u/s 194C - Disallowance of expenditure in terms of S.40 (a) (ia) - Held that:- The word ‘payable’ used in section 40 (a) (ia) has to be given its natural meaning & is applicable only to expenditure which is payable as on 31st March of every year and cannot be invoked to disallow the amounts which have already been paid during the previous year, without deducting tax at Source - no dispute the payments in question were made by the assessee during the year under consideration - in favour of assessee. Direction to apply Rule 8D - Held that:- As the provisions of Rule 8D should be made applicable even to the assessment years prior to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wer authorities, submitted that the expenditure is incurred on a leasehold premises and the assessee has not brought into existence any capital asset of enduring nature. He submitted that the expenditure is incurred purely for business purposes of having a decent premises. He submitted that the lower authorities were not justified in rejecting the claim of the assessee, and treating the expenditure in question as of capital nature. 5. The Learned Departmental Representative on the other hand, strongly relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 6. We heard both sides and perused the orders of the lower authorities. It is an undisputed fact that the expenditure in question is incurred by the assessee, so as to make the premises taken on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of the nature of expenditure on each item. Assessee's grounds on this issue are allowed for statistical purposes. 7. The next effective grievance of the assessee relates to confirmation of disallowance of expenditure of Rs.27,46,319 made in terms of S.40(a)(ia) of the Act, holding that the assessee has not deducted tax under S.194C on such payments. 8. At the outset, the learned counsel for the assessee mentioned that this relating to disallowance of Rs.27,46,310 made by the assessing officer invoking the provisions of S.40(a)(ia) of the Act is covered by the decision of the Special Bench (Visakhapatnam) of the Tribunal dated 29th March, 2012 in the case of Merilyn Shipping & Transports Visakhapatnam V/s. ACIT Range-I, Hyderabad in ITA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n were made by the assessee during the year under consideration, and there is no dispute on that aspect, in view of the said decision of the Special Bench referred to above, we find no justification for the disallowance made by the assessing officer. We accordingly, delete the impugned addition of Rs.27,46,310 made by the assessing officer in terms of S.40(a)(ia) of the Act. Consequently, grounds of tehe assessee on this issue are allowed. 11. The next effective grievance of the assessee in this appeal is that the CIT(A) erred in directing the assessing officer to apply Rule 8D to allow expenditure for earning of dividends u/s. 14A when there is no claim of expenditure on exempted income and without identifying the nature of expenditure at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
