9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 598X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ties owned by the assessee. Such taxes were paid in two instalments of ₹ 5 lakhs each on 31-01-2006 and 01-03-2006. CIT(A), therefore, held that these taxes were allowable expenses on payment basis u/s.43B. Nothing has been argued to controvert the correctness of the finding given in the first appeal. We do not find any reason to deviate from such a finding. Disallowance is payment of rent - CIT(A) after considering the remand report from the AO, that the assessee entered into an agreement on 26-11-1008 with M/s Atma Hatcheries for running their hatcheries plant - HELD THAT:- A Civil suit was filed by M/s Atma Hatcheries against the assessee company and the Hon’ble Civil Judge directed the assessee company to pay a sum of ₹ 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rges totaling to ₹ 28.88 lakh was made by the assessee’s sister concern within the previous year relevant to the assessment year under consideration. CIT(A) was right in deleting the disallowance as it was a case of payment of interest by the sister concern for and on behalf of the assessee during the year in question. Disallowance of outstanding liabilities - cessation of trading liability - AO observed that there was outstanding liability mainly to creditors and customers etc., which was shown as outstanding since 31-03-2006 - HELD THAT:- AO has himself stated that the amount was outstanding since 31-03-2006. We fail to appreciate as to which event has happened in the year under consideration resulting into the “cessation of liab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... yment of Provident Fund. The ld. CIT(A) recorded that the deduction of provident fund was admissible on payment basis in terms of section 43B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called `the Act ). He, therefore, directed the AO to delete the same after ascertaining if the assessee actually made the payment during the year. There is no fallacy in the reasoning given by the ld. first appellate authority. The impugned order is upheld on this score. 6. The second item of disallowance is a sum of ₹ 10 lakh on account of Export obligation payment . The ld. CIT(A) recorded that it was actually a payment towards property tax payable to Talegaon Municipality on the properties owned by the assessee. Such taxes were paid in two ins ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 43B. Again, we are unable to find any infirmity in the impugned order on this score. The same is, therefore, countenanced. 9. The last component of the overall disallowance is ₹ 3,73,403/- made by the AO on account of interest charges. On consideration of the remand report, the ld. CIT(A) allowed deduction for a sum of ₹ 1,91,000/- which was paid by the assessee s sister concern during the year on entering into a MOU with M/s. M.J. Construction company and 3 other entities for settlement of their dues including interest. Since the interest was paid in the year under consideration, we hold that the view taken by the ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition to this extent is unexceptionable. 10. The second part of this disallowan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
