9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 276X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctification application before the AO. Before us, it is the submission of the assessee that matter may be remitted to AO with necessary directions for the necessary verification and thereafter giving the credit of the TDS. Considering the submissions of the AR, we direct the AO to grant the credit for the TDS after necessary verification and in accordance with law. Thus ground of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Relief u/s 90 for the taxes paid in the United Kingdom (UK) - claim of proportionate tax credit u/s 90 - HELD THAT:- As the overseas income earned by the assessee in UK has been offered to tax by the assessee in India and out of the total tax paid by assessee in UK, assessee is claiming credit u/s 90 of the Act since the corresponding amount of income has already been offered to tax in India and has also been accepted by Revenue. We are of the view that the credit of the taxes paid on such income deserves to be allowed. We therefore restore the issue back to the file of AO and direct him to allow the credit of the foreign taxes paid as claimed by the assessee u/s 90 of the Act as per the provision of Act and in accordance with law. Needless to state that A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... law, the CIT(A) and the AO erred in not appreciating that the expenditure incurred was to support the Appellant in establishing the international practice and developing contacts and was incurred wholly exclusively for the purpose of profession and ought to be allowed under Section 37 of the Act 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in no adjudicating the ground of appeal raised by the Appellant challenging the action of the AO in not allowing credit for the entire TDS of ₹ 6,66,17,666/- as claimed by the Appellant. 5. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in no adjudicating the ground of appeal raised by the Appellant challenging the action of the AO in not allowing relief of ₹ 8,57,07,736/- under section 90 of the Act for taxes paid in the United Kingdom. 4. Before us, at the outset, Learned AR submitted that Ground No.1 to 3 are interconnected and is with respect to the disallowance of Scholarship Expenses . 5. During the course of assessment proceedings and on perusal of the Profit Loss account, AO noticed that assessee had claimed ₹ 99,84,863/- under the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e is now in appeal before us. 8. Before us, at the outset, Learned AR submitted that identical issue arose in assessee s own case in A.Y. 2011-12, 2013-14 2014-15 before the Hon ble Tribunal. He submitted that the Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal in ITA No.2285 2392/Del/2016 order dated 13.08.2019 for A.Y. 2011-12 had decided the issue in favour of the assessee. He thereafter submitted that while deciding the issue in A.Y. 2013-14 2014- 15 in ITA No.1007 1008/Del/2018 order dated 24.02.2021, the Tribunal following the order of Co-ordinate Bench for A.Y. 2011- 12 had decided the issue in favour of the assessee and had directed the AO to delete the addition. He pointed to the relevant orders placed in the paper book. He therefore submitted that since the facts of the case in the year under consideration are identical to that of earlier years as has been admitted by the lower authorities, therefore, following the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal in assessee s own case for earlier years, the issue be decided in assessee s favour. 9. Learned DR on the other hand did not controvert the submissions made by Learned AR but further supported the order of lower authori ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... carrying on the profession. He knows better that what kind of expenditure he should incur for furtherance of his business. To judge allowability of an expenditure, the learned assessing officer should put himself into the shoes of the assessee and then decide that whether the expenditure incurred by the assessee is necessary or not for the business of the assessee. Thus, allowability of expenditure should always be judged from the mindset of the assessee. The AO cannot put his thinking to say that the expenditure incurred by the assessee is not wholly and exclusively incurred for his profession, unless, he brings his level of thinking to the level of the professional, like assessee. The requirement of incurring the expenditure by a professional/businessman changes by the changes in the dynamics of the business, its complexities and its uniqueness. The level at which the assessee is carrying on the profession, perhaps, he might not have thought it proper to increases visibility by attending the conferences, seminars et cetera. He has different vision of carrying himself in the professional field to increases visibility and social status. He thought fit to set up a scholarship to In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the far better footing. Hence, we reverse the order of the lower authorities, and direct the learned assessing officer to delete the above disallowance. In view of this, we allow ground number 1 of the appeal of the assessee and dismiss ground number 1 of the appeal of the learned assessing officer. 10. For the assessment year 2012-13 also in ITA No. 2505/Del/2017, such a view was followed by Tribunal. On the parity of facts of the cases on hand with the facts of earlier years, we are of the considered opinion that the consistent view taken by the Tribunal for earlier assessment years cannot be disturbed. While respectfully following the same, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition. 11. Before us, no distinguishing feature in the facts of the case in the year under consideration and that of earlier years has been pointed out by Revenue. Further, Revenue has also not placed any material on record to demonstrate that the order of Tribunal in assessee s own case for earlier years has been set aside/overruled or stayed by higher judicial forum. We therefore following the order of Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal and for similar reasons direct the AO to delete ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,449/- in United Kingdom on which it had paid tax of ₹ 11,69,22,726.6 (corresponding US 12,64,588.63) and apart from that, assessee had also suffered withholding tax to the extent of ₹ 2,00,174.8 (corresponding US 2,165.01). He submitted that the corresponding income was offered to tax and assessee had only claimed proportionate credit of ₹ 8,57,07,736/- out of the total tax of ₹ 11,71,22,901/- that was paid by the assessee in United Kingdom as the entire tax paid in UK was not available for set off in India. To support his contention of the overseas income being offered to tax, he pointed to the copy of the Income and Expenditure Account, which is placed at Page 97 of the paper book. He also pointed to the computation of income, a copy of which is placed at page 98-99 of the paper book. From the aforesaid, he pointed to the relief of ₹ 85,707,736/- claimed u/s 90 of the Act. In support of his contention of having paid the UK taxes, he pointed to the documents placed at Page 101 to 107 of the paper book. He also pointed to the computation of relief u/s 90 of the Act at page 117 of the paper book. Learned AR therefore submitted that since the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
