9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 40X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 57/-. In view of the above facts, we find that the same amount cannot be added under section 68 of the Act. However, as same amount is related to credit received in the bank account, we direct the learned Assessing Officer to verify that whether any interest component is involved in it or not. If there is any interest component, it may be taxed; the balance amount is not chargeable to tax. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition and only tax interest component, if any. In the result, the ground no.1 of the appeal is allowed. Disallowance under section 37(1) in respect of delayed payment of service tax, provident fund, and VAT - HELD THAT:- We find that identical issue has been decided by the co-ordinate Benc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct learned Assessing Officer to delete the disallowance on account of TDR. Thus, ground no. 3 of the appeal is allowed. - ITA No. 86/Mum/2021 - - - Dated:- 28-4-2022 - Shri Prashant Maharishi, AM And Shri Amarjit Singh, JM For the Assessee : Shri Siddharth Kothari, CA For the Revenue : Shri C.T. Mathews, DR ORDER PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM: 01. This appeal is field by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-47, Mumbai [the learned CIT (A)] dated 14 September 2020 for Assessment Year 2017-18. 02. The assessee has raised the following three grounds of appeal. 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming AO's action ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsferable Development Rights (TDRs) claimed as an expenditure of ₹9,26,837/-. 04. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Assessing Officer the assessee preferred the appeal before the learned CIT (A), which was dismissed, and therefore, the assessee is in appeal before us. 05. We find that the appeal is delayed by above 56 days. The fact shows that the CIT (A) passed an order on 14 September 2020. The assessee submits that it did not receive any communication. Order was uploaded on 28 January 2021. As soon as the order was available, assessee filed an appeal on 1 February 2021. As the time limit for filing of the appeal expired on 6 December 2020, the appeal was delayed by 56 days. The assessee submits that the delay caused is fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eard the rival parties. We find that assessee has shown untraceable credit entries in the bank account as a separate item. Such is the amount shown under the head Sundry debtors (others) having the credit items. Before us, it is shown that the entry dated 30 September 2016 is a TDS receivable for Assessment Year 2015-16 amounting to ₹40,157/- which has been taxed under section 68 of the Act by the learned Assessing Officer. Looking at the details placed at the page 89 of the Paper Book, we find that the same entry relates to TDS credit receivable for Assessment Year 2015-16 amounting to ₹40,157/-. In view of the above facts, we find that the same amount cannot be added under section 68 of the Act. However, as same amount is rela ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1798/Kol/2017, order dated 21.08.2018 held that interest expense on late deposit of VAT, service tax, TDS etc are allowable expenditure under section 37(1) of the Act. In view of the above fact, respectfully following the decision of Kolkata Bench of ITAT, we hold that such expenses are not disallowable under section 37(1) of the Act. Further, VAT laws, provident laws and service tax laws clearly provide for payment of interest if there is a delay in payment of fees. Therefore, it is apparent that those respective laws allowed the belated payment along with interest. Therefore, those are not affected by explanation 1 to section 37(1) of the Act. In view of this ground no. 2 of the appeal is allowed. 010. The ground no. 3 is with respect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ordinate Bench in DCIT vs. Rajgir Builders (1999) 70 ITD 226 and in Persepolis Construction Co. (P). Ltd. vs. Addl. CIT (2006) 99 TTJ 92 (Mumbai) has held that cost of transferable development rights is an accrued fastened liability and not a contingent liability. Therefore, he submitted that as such claim is allowed to the assessee since 2009-10 it should be allowed. 012. The learned Departmental Representative supported the order of the learned Assessing Officer and learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals). 013. We have carefully considered the rival contention and find that assessee company is engaged in developing real estate projects comprising of ₹1,65,138/- sq. mt. saleable area. For construction of this area, the per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
