9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 1X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ect the AO to verify the provisions made by the assessee towards contingent payments as narrated in the order of the CIT (A) chart filed by the assessee and reproduced by the CIT (A). In terms of the above, the AO will verify the details and will follow the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Karnataka Power Transmission Company (2016 (2) TMI 412 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT). - ITA No.2630 and 2631/Mum/2014, ITA No.3125/Mum/2014 - - - Dated:- 26-7-2016 - SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Revenue : Shri K. Mohandas, DR For The Assessee : Shri Ronak G. Doshi, AR ORDER PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JM : Out of these three appeals, the appeal in ITA No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the Circular. 3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We find from the records before us that the tax involved in the disputed issue is below ₹ 10 lacs and therefore, in view of the circular No. 21/2015 dated 10th December, 2015 no appeal should be filed by the Revenue before the Tribunal which has tax effect of ₹ 10.00 lacs or less and this circular is also applicable retrospectively to all pending appeals. The relevant extract the said CBDT Circular (Supra) is as under:- This instruction will apply retrospectively to pending appeals and appeals to be filed henceforth in High Courts/Tribunals. Pending appeals below the specified tax limits in para 3 above may be withdrawn/not presse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the case and in law, the Hon ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Mumbai ( the CIT (A) ) erred in upholding the action of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS)-2 (2) ( .O. ) in treating the Appellant as assessee in default for short deduction of ₹ 59,21,831/- u/s 201(1) / 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, ( the Act ) and interest thereon amounting to ₹ 28,42,479/- u/s 201 (1A) of the Act. 2. The Appellant, prays that on the facts and in law it be held that, the Appellant is not an assessee in default and consequently no demand u/s 201 (1) and (1A) of the Act is leviable on the Appellant . 6. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee suo moto made disallowance of inadmissible amount ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ome of the entries for the month of April, 2006 and June, 2006, he stated that only the entries related to the year end i.e. March, 2007 were the provisions which are reversed and added as income for the assessment year 2008-09 and for these entries only he is contesting. For this, he took us through the profit loss account for the assessment year 2008-09 relating to previous year 2007-08 (copy of which is enclosed at assessee s paper book on page 12), wherein reversal entries claimed by assessee and the amount admissible was claimed as deduction amounting to ₹ 3,86,12,839/-. He stated that on this amount, the assessee deducted TDS and made a claim accordingly. Further, when he was asked about bifurcation of the same, he fairly stat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r. The assessee has stated the items of inadmissible expenses u/s 40(a) of the Act amounting to ₹ 2,63,89,625/-. Admittedly, in the next assessment year 2008-09 the assessee claimed deduction for the reason that it was disallowed as in last year u/s 40(a) of the Act. First of all, we find that this amount does not match and details of which are required. The same need verification at the level of the AO. The assessee claimed that these are reversal and are in the nature of contingent liabilities and it should be allowed in favour of the assessee in view of the decision of the Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Karnataka Power Transmission Company (supra). We are in agreement with the arguments of the learned Counsel for the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
