9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (1) TMI 357X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee for deduction cannot be sustained. We therefore uphold the order of CIT (Appeals) and dismiss ground No. 2. Disallowance provision made for bad and doubtful debts u/s. 36(1)(viia) - CIT (Appeals) confirmed the order of AO as the assessee could not produce the required evidence before the CIT(A) also - HELD THAT:- As assessee, however, pointed out that in AYs 2011-12 to 2012-13 ITAT remanded the issue with a direction to the assessee to file the required details in the prescribed form and directed the AO to examine the issue afresh. In such circumstances, we set aside the order of CIT (Appeals) and restore the issue to the AO with a direction to the assessee to file the necessary details to establish its claim for deduction as required under Rule 6ABA of the Rules. Disallowing u/s. 40(a)(ia) - Payment to contractors AND Payment of professional fee - AO was of the view that the aforesaid payments fall under the provisions of section 194C and 194J of the Act respectively - assessee has contended that it had obtained Form 15G 15H in respect of amount paid to contractors - HELD THAT:- If the AO accepts the contention of assessee that expenditure was capitalized ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the order of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court has been stayed. The AO accordingly refused to allow the claim for deduction on account of provision for leave encashment. 5. On appeal by the assessee, the CIT (Appeals) confirmed the order of AO. 6. The ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the stand of assessee as put forth before the AO. 7. We have considered the submission of the ld. counsel for the assessee and we find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has reversed the decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Exide Industries Ltd. Anr. (supra) and has upheld the constitutional validity of section 43B(f) of the Act. 8. In view of the provision of section 43B(f) of the Act, which provides that any sum payable by the assessee as an employer in lieu of any leave at the credit of his employee shall not be allowed as deduction, unless it is actually paid and deduction is allowed only in the previous year in which the sum is actually paid, the claim made by the assessee for deduction cannot be sustained. We therefore uphold the order of CIT (Appeals) and dismiss ground No. 2. 9. Grounds No. 3 4 raised by the assessee reads as follows:- 3. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion of securities in accordance with a scheme framed by the Central Government: Provided also that no deduction shall be allowed under the third proviso unless such income has been disclosed in the return of income under the head Profits and gains of business or profession. Explanation.--For the purposes of this sub-clause, relevant assessment years means the five consecutive assessment years commencing on or after the 1st day of April, 2000 and ending before the 1st day of April, 2005;] (b) a bank, being a bank incorporated by or under the laws of a country outside India, an amount not exceeding five per cent of the total income (computed before making any deduction under this clause and Chapter VI-A);] (c) a public financial institution or a State financial corporation or a State industrial investment corporation, an amount not exceeding five per cent of the total income (computed before making any deduction under this clause and Chapter VI-A):] Provided that a public financial institution or a State financial corporation or a State industrial investment corporation referred to in this sub-clause shall, at its option, be allowed in any of the two con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion to the assessee to file the required details in the prescribed form and directed the AO to examine the issue afresh. In such circumstances, we set aside the order of CIT (Appeals) and restore the issue to the AO with a direction to the assessee to file the necessary details to establish its claim for deduction as required under Rule 6ABA of the Rules. 14. Ground No. 5 raised by the assessee reads as follows:- 5. The learned CIT (A) further erred in disallowing 10,83,977/- u/s. 40(a)(ia) in spite of Assessee obtaining form no. 15G/15H from depositors. 15. For the FY 2012-13 relating to the AY 2013-14, the assessee had incurred the following expenses which have been reported in Form No. 3CD under item (f) of para 17:- i. Payment to contractors ₹ 10,83,977 ii. Payment of professional fee ₹ 50,000 16. The AO was of the view that the aforesaid payments fall under the provisions of section 194C and 194J of the Act respectively. The assessee was asked to explain the details of TDS made on such payment. The assessee did not file the required particulars. 17. According to the AO, the aforesaid payments fell within the mischief of section 194C and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
