9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (1) TMI 1468X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aring an income of ₹ 6,32,22,470/-. An assessment was passed u/s 143(3) on 30th March, 2006 whereby total income of the assessee has been determined at ₹ 11,53,36,450/-. During the course of assessment proceeding Ld. AO found that assessee had made the provisions in respect of certain foreign payments and claimed them. The details have been noticed by the AO in paragraph No. 7.1 which read as under :- Particulars Amount Remarks Provision for training expenses to Hyatt International Asia-Pacific Ltd. Hongkong ₹ 707294 Paid in F.Y.2003-04 Provision for FBFR Software Maintenance to Information Services ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... naccuracy. It cannot be charged with the allegation that assessee furnished inaccurate particulars which can be used for visiting the assessee with the penalty. 6. Ld. DR while impugning the order of Ld. CIT(A) contended that assessee is an organized company. It is fully aware about its tax obligation, in respect of payments made to the foreign companies upto and unless it has deducted the tax and paid to the Govt. it cannot claim deduction of such payments. The expenses for which it has made provision and claimed as deduction may be business expenses but if the business expenses are payable to a foreigner then assessee is bound to deduct the tax in order to claim the deduction. Thus assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars and it d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... next year for the sum of ₹ 7,07,294/- and even thereafter deduction was not granted to it. Ld. First Appellate Authority has accepted the plea of assessee that it was a bonafide error. Otherwise assessee has disclosed all material facts truly in the return. Ld. CIT(A) has placed its reliance on the latest decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Petrochem. 9. On perusal of the asstt. order it reveals that AO has made disallowance of ₹ 74,79,510/- u/s 40 (a)(i) of the Income Tax Act on the ground that assessee has deducted the tax in respect of five projects but deposited the same subsequent to the relevant financial year. He disallowed the claim of assessee. It appears that this disallowance has been deleted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
