9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 1421X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng payments through debit cards and credit cards. In the present case we further feel the said principle should be applied as HDFC would necessarily have acted as per law and it is not the case of the Revenue that the bank had not paid taxes on their income. It is not a case of loss of Revenue as such or a case where the recipient did not pay their taxes - decided against revenue. Provision for gratuity was not an ascertain liability, whereas assessee has been contending that it is an ascertain liability - Held that:- CIT (A) on facts held that in this case, the provision for gratuity is an ascertained liability and while placing reliance on the decision reported in ACIT vs. NHPC Limited decided by a coordinate bench of this Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The appellant craves to be allowed to add any fresh grounds of appeal and/or delete or amend any of the grounds of appeal. 2. Briefly stated facts are that the assessee is in the business of manufacturing and trading of jewellery, and for the AY 2012-13 they have filed their return of income on 28.09.2012 declaring a total income of ₹ 1,04,99,00,570/-. Assessment was completed by making an addition of ₹ 1,58,19,150/- by disallowing an expenditure u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Income tax Act, 1961 (for short called the Act ) and ₹ 32,19,512/- in respect of the provisions for retirement benefits for the purpose of Section 115JB of the Act. On appeal of the assessee ld. CIT (A) by way of impugned order deleted both the additions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee to deduct the TDS and further bank was not working for the assessee but on the other hand, it was working for its customers, as such, there is no requirement of TDS on bank charges. Ld. CIT (A) placed reliance on the binding decision of the Jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs. JDS Apparels (P) Ltd. (supra), wherein it was held as follows: 17. Another reason why we feel Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act should not have been invoked in the present case is the principle of doubtful penalization which requires strict construction of penal provisions. The said principle applies not only to criminal statutes but also to provisions which create a deterrence and results in punitive penalty. Section 40(a)(ia) is a deterrent and a penal provision. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tes. In the present case we further feel the said principle should be applied as HDFC would necessarily have acted as per law and it is not the case of the Revenue that the bank had not paid taxes on their income. It is not a case of loss of Revenue as such or a case where the recipient did not pay their taxes. 19. In these circumstances, we do not find any merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed. 5. Facts are similar, and the principle of the above decision is applicable to the facts of the case on hand. We, therefore, hold that the disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) cannot be sustained and uphold the finding of the Ld.CIT (A). Ground no. 1 is dismissed. 6. Now coming to ground no. 2, a sum of ₹ 32,19,512/- was disall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
