9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 875X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aimed as deduction in the computation of income. The Ld. AR appearing on behalf of the appellant therefore requested that the matter be remanded back to the AO and sufficient opportunity be allowed to the appellant to prove that the claim was not an excessive deduction and that the impugned sum did not form part of the staff welfare expenses debited to P L A/c. - allowed for statistical purposes. Addition of interest income relying on 26AS - assessee claimed that interest income did not pertain to it and company has not even claimed the credit of TDS - HELD THAT:- I am of the considered view that based on 26AS alone no additions can be made. This can at best be a starting point for necessary verification but it cannot, on standalone b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Eastern Power Distribution Co. of AP Ltd Vs ACIT [2011 (3) TMI 547 - ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM] wherein on identical set of facts this Tribunal - ground stands allowed. - I.T.A. No. 1442/Kol/2018 - - - Dated:- 10-4-2019 - Shri A. T. Varkey, JM For The Appellant : Shri A.K. Tibrewal, AR For The Respondent : Shri Biswanath Das, Addl. CIT ORDER This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-2, Kolkata [ Ld. CIT(A)] dated 11.04.2018for the Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The first ground of appeal is against the Ld. CIT(A) s order confirming the disallowance of lease rentals of ₹ 21,57,334/- holding it to be excess/double deduction claimed in the comput ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deduction rather than allowability of the lease rentals. He submitted that the appellant was unable to produce any evidence to show that the separate claim made in respect of lease rentals did not form part of the staff welfare expenses and hence urged that the order of the lower authorities be upheld. 4. After examining the contentions put forth by both the parties, it is noted that the issue at hand does not concern the legal allowability of the claim of lease rentals and to that extent I agree with the Ld. AR of the appellant that the allowability of principal component of the lease rentals stands decided in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of I.C.D.S. Ltd Vs CIT (supra). It is however n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 67,939/- relying on Statement in Form 26AS. During the course of assessment proceeding, the AO observed that assessee failed to reconcile interest income to the extent of ₹ 67,939/- with its books of accounts and therefore added back the said amount as undisclosed interest income of the appellant as shown in the Form 26AS. Aggrieved by this order, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A), where it submitted that this income did not pertain to it and for that reason the company did not even claim the credit for the corresponding taxes deducted at source on the impugned sum of ₹ 67,939/-. The appellant therefore urged before the Ld. CIT(A) that the impugned addition be set aside. The Ld. CIT(A) however disregarde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urposes. 7. The third ground of appeal is against the Ld. CIT(A) s action of confirming the addition made by the AO on account of the provision set aside for long-term employees benefits in the form of gratuity, leave encashment, ex-gratia bonus while assessing the book profit u/s 115JB of the Act. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant had provided for the long term employees benefits inter alia including provision for gratuity, bonus and leave encashment etc. in terms of the mandatory Accounting Standards -15 issued by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India. From the Notes forming part of the Annual Financial Statements for the relevant FY 2011-12, it is observed that provision for employee benefits hav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l valuation. In the following cases it has been held that such kind of provision falls under the category of Ascertained liability : ( a) CIT v. Ilpea Paramount (P.) Ltd. [2010] 192 Taxman 65 (Delhi) ( b) CIT v. National Hydro Electric Power Corpn. Ltd. [2010] 45 DTR (Punj.. Har.) 117 In both the cases it has been held that the provision made for gratuity is an ascertained liability and hence the same is deductible while computing book profit under section 115JA/115JB. In the second mentioned case, it has been held that the provision made for leave encashment, post-retirement medical benefit are also ascertained liabilities, which are deductible under section 115JB from the book profits. In the instant case, though t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
