9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (1) TMI 1012X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the payment of ₹ 11,53,378/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s 40a(ia). 2. deleting the addition of ₹ 10,94,314/- made by Assessing Officer by disallowing the interest charged. 3. Rival contentions have been heard and records perused. The facts of the case in brief are that the assessee company is manufacturing synthetic detergent on job work basis for Hindustan Unilever Limited. The Assessing Officer found that the TDS deducted on payments of ₹ 14,20,678/- was deposited after the due date for depositing TDS in Govt. account. The assessee submitted before the Assessing Officer that out of the total payment of ₹ 14,20,678/- the payment amounting to ₹ 11,53,378/- was made for capital expenditure hence the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 07.02.2006 07.04.2006 2,500 2.244 07.02.2006 07.04.2006 2,500 2.244 07.02.2006 07.04.2006 1,88,068 2.244 07.02.2006 07.04.2006 43,409 2.244 07.02.2006 07.04.2006 18703 2.244 07.02.2006 07.04.2006 34734 2.244 1420648 2.244 6. The Assessing Officer has also tabulated the above details in its order in para 2. 7. The ld. Senior DR did not dispute to the factual position with regard to the actual payment of TDS. Once the TDS has been found to be paid before the last date of filing return, no disallowance is warranted u/s 40a(ia). During the course of hearing, the ld. Authorized Representative also drawn our attention to the submission filed before the Assessing Officer which indicate that out of total payment of S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Creations amendment brought in by the Finance Act, 2010, were retrospective from 1.4.2005. In the case of Piyush C. Mehta, I.T.A.T., Mumbai Bench in I.T.A. No. 1231/Mum/2009 vide order dated 11th April, 2012, held as under :- "17. It can be seen from the above decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court that Amendment to the provisions of Sec.40a(ia) of the Act, by the Finance Act, 2010 as aforesaid was held to be retrospective from 1.4.2005. If the amendment is considered as retrospective from 1.4.2005, the effect will be that payments of TDS to the credit of the Government on or before the last date for filing return of income u/s. 139(1) of the Act for the relevant AY have to be allowed & deduction. Admittedly, in the case of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act, by the Finance Act, 2010 is retrospective from 1.4.2005. Consequently, any payment of tax deducted at source during previous years relevant to and from AY 05-06 can be made to the Government on or before the due date for filing return of income u/s.139(1) of the Act. If payments are made as aforesaid, then no disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act can be made. Admittedly in the present case the Assessee had deposited the tax deducted at source before the due date for filing return of income u/s. 139(1) of the Act and therefore the impugned disallowance deserves to be deleted. We order accordingly and allow the appeal by the Assessee. " 17. In view of the above discussion and applying the proposition of law laid down in the above deci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onsidered the rival submissions and found from record that assessee had claimed Bank charges and finance charges incurred after commencement of production, as revenue expenses. These expenses are essentially incurred revenue in nature. Accordingly, there is no reason to disallow the same in terms of provisions of Section 37. Even though the ld. CIT(A) has allowed the same u/s 36(i)(iii), as per our considered view, such revenue expenditure are allowable u/s 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Furthermore, a clear finding has been recorded by CIT(A) that such expenditure was claimed only after commencement of production. Thus, there is no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) for allowing such claim. 10. In the cross objection, the assessee has chal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2,67,300/-." 11. The issue has already been discussed by us while dealing with Revenue's grounds for deletion of disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia), since entire amount of TDS was deposited by the assessee before the last date of filing return, no disallowance was warranted. Accordingly, the CIT(A) was not justified in sustaining addition of ₹ 2,67,300/-. 12. In so far as reopening is concerned, we found that the detailed reasons have been recorded by the Assessing Officer for reopening the assessment. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order of CIT(A) for upholding the reassessment proceedings. 13. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed, whereas cross objection is allowed in part. This order has been p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
