9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 215X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion u/s.40(a)(ia) - freight charges paid - HELD THAT:- Now it is a well settled law in view of the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court judgment in the case of Ansal Land Mark Township (P) Ltd. [ 2015 (9) TMI 79 - DELHI HIGH COURT] that said proviso is clarificatory in nature and will apply respectively. Before us, ld. counsel had placed copies of income tax return of the parties to prove that these parties are regularly assessed to tax and has also shown these payments in the return of income and have paid taxes thereon. However, merely from the return the same is not very discernable. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that this matter should be restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer to verify, whether the payees have offered this amount in their return of income and have taken into account such sum for computing the income and have paid taxes thereon. Addition u/s.14A on account of interest and bank charges - HELD THAT:- From the assessment order, it is seen that the ld. Assessing Officer has observed that funds over drawn by the payee were never utilized for the purpose of business and has tried to make the disallowance u/s.14A without any giving any reasoning ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in law as well as on facts by upholding the addition of ₹ 75,00,000/- u/s. 68 of I.T.Act,1961by treating the unsecured loans as unexplained. 3. That the Ld CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts by upholding the addition of ₹ 21,04,667/- u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the I.T.Act,1961. 4. That the Ld CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts by upholding the addition of ₹ 24,44,658/- u/s 14A of the I.T. Act,1961 5. That the Ld CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts by upholding the notional addition of ₹ 1,05,000/- on account of dividend from investment in a private unlisted company. 6. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts by not adjudicating on the matter involving the addition of ₹ 63,787/-on account of disallowance of expenses. 7. That the Ld. AO has erred in law as well as on facts by imposing penalty u/s 271(l)(c) of the IT Act,1961. 8. As the above additions are bad in facts and law are baseless, hence the interest charged u/s 234A,234B, 234C and 234D may also be deleted. 2. At the outset, ground ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The said credit was received from Mr. Sandeep Arora, Director of M/s. High Ground Enterprises Ltd., on behalf of the said company and this fact is fully verifiable by the bank statement placed in the paper book from pages 56 59. Even in the books of account of the assessee, it is credited in the name of M/s. High Ground Enterprises Ltd. which has been sought to be added u/s.68. He further explained that there has been trade relationship between assessee and M/s. Ram Krishna Electro Component Pvt. Ltd. which is a debtor in the books of the assessee in the relevant previous year. The said amount received has yet not been adjusted against the debt and disclosed as unsecured loan in the name of M/s. High Ground Enterprises. because, the final verdict at that time was still pending from the Hon ble High Court and permission to pass a Journal Voucher was yet to be granted. The judgment of the Hon ble High Court is now available which clearly proves and support the contention and explanation of the assessee. Thus, such an amount could not have been added in the hands of the assessee-company. 7. On the other hand, ld. DR strongly relied upon the order o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Hon ble High Court had not come. Now that the judgment of Hon ble High Court has come therefore, it is no longer in the nature of loan. Under these facts and circumstances, it cannot be held that the source of credit of ₹ 75 lacs remained unexplained, because admittedly the said amount has come from M/s. High Ground Enterprises Ltd. in pursuance of suit filed by the sister concern of the assessee which is an amount due by the said party to the sister concern, i.e., M/s. Rama Krishna Electro Component Pvt. Ltd.. Accordingly, the addition made by the Assessing Officer is directed to be deleted. 9. As regards the addition of ₹ 21,04,667/- made u/s.40(a)(ia), the brief facts are that, assessee has paid freight charges amounting to ₹ 21,04,667/- which were debited to the Profit Loss account. The said amount has been paid to the following parties: a. M/s. Sai Dutta Shipping Agency ₹ 9,34,,472/- b. M/s. Deft Shipping Agency ₹ 57,433/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee had submitted that now in view of 2nd proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) read with 1st proviso to Section 201 which has been brought in the statute w.e.f. 01.07.2012, provides that where the assessee has failed to deduct whole or any part of the TDS, but if the payee has shown the said amount in his return of income filed u/s.139 and has taken into account such sum for computing the income and has paid the taxes, then no disallowance can be made. Now it is a well settled law in view of the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court judgment in the case of Ansal Land Mark Township (P) Ltd. (supra) that said proviso is clarificatory in nature and will apply respectively. Before us, ld. counsel had placed copies of income tax return of the parties to prove that these parties are regularly assessed to tax and has also shown these payments in the return of income and have paid taxes thereon. However, merely from the return the same is not very discernable. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that this matter should be restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer to verify, whether the payees have offered this amount in their return of income and have taken into account such su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
