9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 773X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e commission. We are also of the view that learned Commissioner (Appeals) has correctly applied the extant Circular of CBDT as it is clarificatory in nature. In view of the aforesaid, we uphold the decision of learned Commissioner (Appeals) by dismissing the grounds raised. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act before the Assessing Officer seeking rectification on the ground that as against the addition of ₹ 1,61,52,564/-, the actual guarantee commission paid to the bank was ₹ 95,68,829/-. Having found assessee's claim correct, the Assessing Officer passed an order on 06.05.2016 under Section 154 of the Act restricting the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) to ₹ 95,68,829/-. However, while computing the income in the aforesaid order, the Assessing Officer actually disallowed ₹ 65,83,735/-. 4. Be that as it may, while considering assessee's appeal on the issue, learned Commissioner (Appeals) found that as per Circular No. 56 of 2012, dated 31.12.2012 issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), TDS provisions a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hus, as per the Assessing Officer's own admission, in the worst case scenario, the disallowance which could have been made under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act is to the tune of ₹ 95,68,829/- and no more. In view of the aforesaid undisputed factual position emerging on record, the tax effect on the amount which ultimately survived after the order passed under Section 154 of the Act and which can be the subject matter of dispute between the Revenue and assessee would be less than ₹ 50 lakhs as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, dated 08th August, 2019. 7. That being the case, the present appeal of the Revenue, in the first place, not being maintainable, has to be dismissed. 8. Even, otherwise also, insofar as the merit of the issue i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
