9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 282X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tax was required to be deducted and deposited in the respective succeeding month as per the provision of chapter XVII-B otherwise the expenditure does not qualify for deduction during the year under consideration. Only for the payments/credits in the month of March, 2009, the assessee could have deposited the TDS by the due date of filing return u/s 139(1). The AO accordingly disallowed the entire expenditure of Rs. 12,28,478/- though the tax was deducted on 31.03.2009 and deposited in the month of May/June, 2009 in respect of these payments. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). 2.2 After considering the submissions of the assessee, the ld. CIT(A) has found the claim of the assessee allowable during the year under consideration itself in view of amendment in Section 40(a)(ia) made by the Finance Act, 2010. He relied on judgements of Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Virgin Creation and judgement of ITAT, Bangalore in the case of ACIT vs. M. K. Gurumurthy, (2012) 32 CCH 49 and S. S. Ward vs. Addl. CIT (2012) 19 ITR (Trib) 35. He also relied on judgement of ITAT, Jaipur Bench in the case of Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2009)-123 TTH 88 (J ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CIT (A)on this issue. We also find that the entire expenditure in question has been paid by the assessee and nothing remains payable as on the end of the year. The Special Bench, Vishakhapatnam in the case of Merilyn Shipping & Transport vs. Addl. CIT, 136 ITD 23 has decided this issue in assessee's favour. However the Andhra Pradesh High Court has put this order under interim suspension. On the other hand Gujrat High Court in CIT vs. Sikandar Khan N Tunvar, 33 Taxman.com 133 and Calcutta High Court in CIT vs. Crescent Exports Syndicate, 33 Taxman.com 250 has decided the matter against the assessee. On the contrary Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Vector Shipping Services (P) Ltd. (Supra) has given decision in favour of the assessee and SLP against the same has been dismissed on 6th July 2014. Giving preference to the latest update of dismissal of SLP against the favourable decision, we are inclined to uphold the finding of Ld. CIT (A) on this alternative reason for deciding the appeal in assessee's favour. We also take support from the decision of ITAT Chennai in the case of ITO Vs. Theekathir Press, ITA No. 2076(Mds)/2012 (Order dated 18th September, 2013) and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... charges. The Ld. AO alleged that the assessee did not produce any voucher in this respect. He further mentioned that all these payments are made in cash and therefore the same is not allowable according to provisions of section 40A(3). On the contrary ld. CIT (A) in para 4.3 of his order observed that it appears that AO has made the disallowance on the basis one entry made in the books of account and without asking for any supporting evidence in the form of vouchers obtained from the recipients. If such details were called for and examined, the AO will not make the observation that these payments are covered by the provisions of section 40A(3) because as per the details and photo copy of the vouchers filed, these payments have been made to fourteen persons and all are below the limit prescribed under the provision of section 40A(3) of the Act. The payments of Rs. 2,00,000/- have been made to fourteen persons for wall painting. They have mentioned the rate at which they charged per sq. meter for wall painting. It is not a case of the AO that he examined the recipients of the payment and they have denied of having done any work and received any payment from the appellant. In view of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of the assessee. On that basis Ld. CIT(A) found that as there are many parties involved in total discount of Rs. 23,000/- provision of section 40A(3) does not apply. In these facts and circumstances of the case we find no reasons to disagree with the ld. CIT(A) and accordingly uphold his order on this issue. This ground of appeal of the revenue fails. 4.4 The last ground no. 5 is against deletion of disallowance of interest expenses of Rs. 1,55,246/- is respect of interest free advance of Rs. 12,93,724/- given to the sister concerns. The fact relating to the above ground of appeal as emerge from the assessment order are that the assessee has advanced sum of Rs. 12,93,724/- to its sister concerns and is outstanding as it is on 31.03.2009. No interest on this amount has been charged whereas the assessee has paid interest at the rate of 14% amounting to Rs. 25,69,598/-. According to the AO, if the assessee did not give the above sum without interest and repaid the loans taken by it, the assessee would have incurred interest expenses less by Rs. 1,55,246/-. As the assessee failed to file any satisfactory explanation for not charging the interest, the AO held the interest of Rs. 1,55 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
