9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 1402X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... empt income or not is only prospective and does apply to the relevant assessment year. In this context, we rely on the order of Bajaj Capital Ventures (P) Ltd. [ 2022 (7) TMI 23 - ITAT MUMBAI] . It is ordered accordingly. Addition u/s 40(a)(ia) which were year-end provisions reported in the Form 3CD - HELD THAT:- We find on identical facts and circumstances, the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in assessee s own case for assessment years 2013-2014 [ 2022 (6) TMI 1433 - ITAT BANGALORE] has restored the issue to the A.O. with specific directions to verify the details of payments and tax deducted and allow the expenditure where the TDS is remitted to the Government account on or before the due date for filing the return of income. Addition u/s 43B - Assessee did not remit statutory dues [CST, excise duty on closing stock] before the due date of filing of return of income - AO rejected the contention of the assessee and held that the CST, excise duty on closing stock collected and paid are included in the valuation of purchase, sale and inventory, then effect will be nil only if the said amounts are paid within the due date of filing return in terms of section 43B - CIT(A) held that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... income of the Trust is the income of the Assessee, given the provisions of section 10(38) of the I.T. Act, there is no reason why the benefit of the exemption cannot be extended to the assessee as well. With respect to the provisions of section 115JB of the I.T. Act, the lower authorities have sought to include the subject amount as a part of book profits though the same is added to the General Reserves and not in the profit and loss account. In the event of books of accounts being prepared in accordance with the provisions of the relevant Companies Act, it is well accepted that the AO has no jurisdiction to go behind net profit shown in the profit and loss account except to the extent provided therein. As it has been held above that the said amount is not the income of the Assessee but of the Trust, there is no question of considering it as a part of book profits. On going through the impugned orders there is no effort to establish the same. Given the same, the CIT(A)/AO have erred in disturbing the book profit as considered by the Assessee. Short credit of taxes - We restore the issue raised in ground to the files of the A.O. The A.O. is directed to verify and grant TDS and TCS ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (including interest) in the said assessment order. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the first appellate authority. The CIT(A) vide the impugned order dated 20.12.2017, disposed of the appeal of the assessee. The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal, raising the following grounds:- 1. Grounds relating to Depreciation on Goodwill: 1.1 The learned CIT{A) erred in confirming the action of the AO in disallowing Depreciation of INR 3, 73, 88, 587 on Goodwill arising on acquisition of Karnataka Breweries and Distilleries Limited; 1.2 The learned CIT{A) erred in confirming the action of the AO in disallowing Depreciation by blindly relying on the earlier year order, without appreciating the complete facts of the case. 1.3 The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the AO in disallowing Depreciation ignoring the ruling of Hon'ble Supreme Court and other judicial precedents; and 1.4 The learned CIT{A) erred in confirming the action of the AO without appreciating the fact that Goodwill is an intangible asset thus entitled for deprec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) without appreciating the fact that there was no requirement of making TDS on year end provisions when no credit was given to the identified party; 3.3 The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the AO in making disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) without appreciating the rationale of the provisions of the Act and without appreciating that TDS is required only when the income is credited to identified party; 3.4 . The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the AO in making disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) without appreciating the fact that the year end provisions made by the Assessee is reversed in the subsequent year and the TDS is deposited based on the actual credit given tc the party; 3.5 The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the AO in making disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) without considering the decisions of the jurisdictional judicial authorities and erred on relying on a decision where the facts are distinguishable and where the credit was given to identified parties. 3.6 The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the AO in making disallowance under sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion expenses, by erroneously holding that the objective is enhancement of brand and creation of brand entity and without appreciating the fact that these expenses are to promote the brand and increase the sale of the product 6.4 The learned CIT{A) has erred in confirming the action of the AO in making addition in respect of payment towards Brand Promotion expenses by erroneously holding the assessee gained a new advantage of enduring nature, which conclusion is based on surmises and presumptions without any iota of evidence 6.5 The learned CIT{A) has erred in confirming the action of the AO in making addition in respect of payment towards Brand Promotion expenses, disregarding the various judicial decisions cited by the assessee by merely stating that the decisions are distinguishable on facts, without mentioning how they are distinguishable. 6.6 The learned CIT{A) has erred in confirming the action of the AO in making addition in respect of payment towards Brand Promotion expenses, without appreciating that the learned AO has no jurisdiction to question the commercial expediency for the incurrence of the expenditure 7. Grounds related to addition towards Capital Gains ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e learned CIT(A) has erred in not adjudicating on the ground raised by the assessee that the learned AO erred in raising a demand of Dividend Distribution tax on the assessee, without adducing any reason 10. Grounds related to additions to Book profit of amounts disallowed u/s 14A 10.1 The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the AO in adding back to the book profit, the disallowance made u/s 14A, as was done in normal computation of income, ignoring the decisions relied upon by the assessee 11. The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the AO in levying interest under section 234B/ 234C of the Act. The Assessee submits that each of the above grounds is independent and without prejudice to one another. The Assessee craves leave to add, alter, amend, vary, omit or substitute any of the aforesaid grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal, so as to enable the Hon'ble Tribunal to decide on the appeal in accordance with the law." We shall adjudicate the above grounds as under: Depreciation on Goodwill (Ground 1) (1.1 to 1.4) 6. The assessee in the return of income filed had claimed an amount of Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... med the same as exempt under section 10(34) of the I.T. Act. The AO in the impugned assessment order has made disallowance of Rs.1, 31, 50, 663 under section 14A of the I.T. Act by invoking the provisions of Rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 ("Rules"). The AO rejected the contention of the assessee that it had not incurred any expenditure in relation to income not includible in total income. 7.1 Aggrieved by the order of the A.O., the assessee raised this issue before the first appellate authority. The CIT(A) considered the submissions of the assessee and observed that the investments of the assessee for the AY 2012-13 stood at Rs.2547 lakhs out of which, Rs.2541 lakhs were invested in Maltex Malsters Limited, subsidiary company of the assessee since the AY 2007-08. The CIT(A) therefore observed that the investment during the year was only Rs.6 lakhs only and the own fund available during the year is more than sufficient to cover this investment. The CIT(A) therefore provided partial relief and held that disallowance under section 14A is not called for on the value of fresh investment of Rs.6 lakhs made by the assessee during the year. As regards the earlier investment of Rs.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the stand of the assessee:- (i) Joint Investments Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (59 Taxmann.com 295)- it was held that disallowance u/s 14A of the Act is to be restricted to the tax exempt income. (ii) Daga Global Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT [2015-ITRVITAT-MUM-123) - has held that disallowance u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D cannot exceed the exempt income. (iii) M/s.Pinnacle Brocom Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (ITA No.6247/M/2012) - has held that disallowance u/s 14A cannot exceed the exempt income. (iv) DCM Ltd. v. DCIT (ITA No.4567/Del/2012) - held that the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act cannot exceed the exempt income. 3.5 In view of the above settled position, the amount of disallowance u/s 14A of the I.T. Act needs to be restricted to the extent of exempted income earned during the relevant assessment year. As would be evident that in the facts and circumstances of the present case the amount of exempted income of Rs.27, 37, 47, 187 was earned on investment and consequently the amount of disallowance, if at all, to be made is to be restricted to Rs.27, 37, 47, 187. 3.6 However, in this case, the assessee had made disallowance of Rs.145, 02, 09, 668 voluntarily while filing the return of in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... expenditure incurred to earn exempted income has to be a smaller part of such income and should have a reasonable proportion to the exempted income earned by the Assessee in that year, which can be computed as per Rule 8D only after recording the satisfaction by the Assessing Authority that the apportionment of such disallowable expenditure under Section 14A made by the Assessee or his claim that no expenditure was incurred is validly rejected by the Assessing Authority by recording reasonable and cogent reasons conveyed to Assessee and after giving opportunity of hearing to the Assessee in this regard. 22. We, therefore, dispose of the present appeal by answering question of law in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue and by holding that the disallowance under Rule 8D of the IT Rules read with Section 14A of the Act can never exceed the exempted income earned by the Assesee during the particular assessment year and further, without recording the satisfaction by the Assessing Authority that the apportionment of such disallowable expenditure made by the Assessee with respect to the exempted income is not acceptable for reasons to be assigned the Assessing Authority, he can ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xes have been deducted and remitted before the due date of filing of the return of income and hence no disallowance is called for in respect of the expenditure. The AO disallowed the amount of Rs.8, 24, 77, 951 u/s 40(a)(ia) of the I.T. Act, which were yearend provisions reported in the Form 3CD. The AO disallowed amount of Rs.8, 24, 77, 951 instead of Rs.7, 34, 77, 951 and hence, a rectification application was filed by the assessee. The AO has disposed of the rectification application vide order dated 30.11.2016 and the disallowance has been restricted to Rs.7, 34, 77, 951. 8.1 Aggrieved by the order of the A.O., the assessee has raised this issue before the first appellate authority. The CIT(A) rejected the contentions of the assessee relying on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of IBM India (P) Ltd reported in (2015) 59 taxmann.com 107 and upheld the addition made by the AO in the assessment order. 8.2 Aggrieved, the assessee has raised this issue before the Tribunal. The learned AR submitted that that the issue was examined by this Tribunal in assessee's own case for AY 2008-09 and 2009-10 in the context of revisionary order passed by the CIT under section 263 of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .O. is directed to comply with the directions of the Tribunal (supra) and take a decision on the issue after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. It is ordered accordingly. Disallowance u/s 43B (Ground 4) (4.1 to 4.3) 9. The assessee during the relevant AY 2012-2013 did not remit statutory dues amounting to Rs.7, 63, 44, 091 before the due date of filing of return of income. The assessee accordingly added back a sum of Rs.7, 14, 16, 112 in the computation of income since the same was not allowable under section 43B of the I.T. Act. The differential amount of Rs.49, 27, 979 (Rs.7, 63, 44, 091 - Rs.7, 14, 16, 112) comprised of CST payable of Rs.48, 19, 114 and excise on closing stock amount to Rs.1, 08, 865. The said amounts were not added back by the assessee for the reason that the same were not debited to the P&L account. 9.1 The AO rejected the contention of the assessee and held that the CST, excise duty on closing stock collected and paid are included in the valuation of purchase, sale and inventory, then effect will be nil only if the said amounts are paid within the due date of filing return in terms of section 43B of the I.T. Act. The AO therefo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... We have heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. We find that on identical facts, the Tribunal in assessee's own case for assessment year 2011- 2012 in ITA No.126/Bang/2020 (supra), remitted the issue to the files of the A.O. The relevant finding of the Tribunal reads as follows:- "52. Vide Ground No.6 the plea of the assessee is that Rs.4, 60, 672 disallowed u/s. 43B is not justified since no such expenditure is claimed in the P&L account. We notice that for AY 2010-11, for a similar disallowance, the assessee made petition u/s.154 which was considered by the AO who deleted the disallowance. We therefore remit the issue back to AO with a direction to verify and allow the claim of the assessee taking into consideration the rectification order passed u/s.154 for AY 2010-11. It is ordered accordingly." 9.6 In view of the aforesaid order of the Tribunal in assessee's own case for assessment year 2011-2012, we remit the issue back to the files of the A.O. with a direction to verify and allow the claim of the assessee taking into consideration the rectification order passed u/s 154 for A.Y. 2010-2011. It is ordered accordingly. Withholding tax amount on foreign ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unting, the income is to be offered to tax on accrual basis and therefore it is the gross income that needs to offered to tax in assessee's case here. However the assessee is entitled to claim credit for the tax paid on the doubly taxed income in accordance section 90/91 read with Rule 128 of the Income Tax Rules and in the given case, this fact is also held by the CIT(Appeals) that the assessee is entitled for credit for foreign tax paid. Though the assessee has not brought any new evidence on record before us to substantiate the tax deducted by the payer, in the interest of justice, we are of the view that the assessee should be given an opportunity to produce the evidence. Therefore, we remit the issue back to the AO with a direction to allow credit for the tax paid in foreign countries on the doubly taxed income in accordance with provisions of section 90 /91 r.w. Rule 128 based on the documents / evidences submitted by the assessee in this regard. The assessee is directed to submit the relevant documents and cooperate with the proceedings before the AO. This ground is allowed for statistical purposes." 10.5 In view of the aforesaid order of the Tribunal in assessee's own cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd perused the material on record. The AO disallowed the sales promotion and advertisement expenses totally amounting to Rs. 44, 33, 55, 403 [36, 91, 12, 995 + 7, 42, 42, 408] for the reason that these expenses are brand promotion expenditures of USL logo, it promotes the brand the assessee, gives enduring benefit and hence capital in nature. The DRP confirmed the action of the AO. 12.6.1 Similar issue has been considered by the Tribunal in assessee's own case for the AY 2012-13 in IT(TP)A No. 489/B/2017 order dated 29.5.2020 wherein it was held as under:- "45. We have heard Ld D.R on this issue and perused the record. We notice the issue relating to allowability of expenditure incurred on sponsorship of sports event was considered by the Mumbai bench of ITAT in the case of Samudra Developers Pvt Ltd (ITA 5974/Mum/2013 dated 26- 04-2017) and it was held that the same is allowable as revenue expenditure. For the sake of convenience, we extract below the operative portion of the order passed by Mumbai bench of Tribunal on an identical issue:- "3. Second ground of appeal pertains to deleting the disallowance on account of sponsorship fees and management fees. In the earlier p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t it had incurred similar expenditure in the subsequent two years, that out of the total expenditure the assessee had claimed a very small proportion under the head sponsorship expenses. Such an expenditure is for advertising the brand name of the Group. Being a recurring expenditure, it had to be allowed as revenue expenditure. We find that in the case of Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co.Ltd.(supra)the Hon'ble Court had held that expenditure incurred for organizing sports events are allowable items of revenue expenditure as such events publicise the names of the sponsor. The AO was not justified in capitalising the expenses. The entire expenditure was rightly allowed by the FAA as revenue expenditure. After going through the details of expenditure incurred by assessee under the head managerial expenses, we are of the opinion that it had not got any enduring benefit from the expenditure incurred nor did the expenditure create any capital asset. Therefore, we do not want to interfere with the order of the FAA. Considering the above, we decide second ground of appeal against the AO." 46. The Delhi bench of Tribunal has also examined an identical claim in the case of M/s Pepsic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the approval of the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports for sponsoring the events covered under the agreement. Copy of the order under section 195 of the Act and the approval received from the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports has been enclosed at pages 247 to 249 and 224 of the paper-book respectively. He further submitted that the expenditure was wholly and exclusively for the business of the assessee company and had not been disputed by the revenue. Any incidental benefit that may arise to any other person or entity cannot be a bar for allowance of expenditure under section 37 of the Act, as per the settled position of law. Reference in this regard was made to the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in CIT vs. Chandulal Keshavlal & Co. [1960] 38 ITR 601 (SC), Sasson J. David and Co. P. Ltd vs. CIT 118 ITR 261(SC) and SA Builders Ltd. vs. CIT 288 ITR 1(SC). He further submitted that the Revenue cannot step into the shoes of an assessee to determine the commercial expediency of an expenditure incurred by it. 90. On the other hand, the learned DR relied upon the order of the AO and the DRP in support of his contentions. 91. After considering the rival s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed on sponsoring of sports events are intended to promote business only and hence the same is allowable as expenditure. The allowability of brand promotion expenses was examined by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Modi Revelon P Ltd (supra) and the relevant discussions made by the High Court are extracted below:- "22. As far as the second aspect, i.e. expenditure for promotion of the brand is concerned, there is no doubt that the dealer's functions extend to advertising the products of the assessee, manufactured by the sister concern. On this aspect, Section 37 of the Income-tax Act would be relevant. The said provision reads as follows: "SECTION 37 GENERAL: (1) Any expenditure (not being expenditure of the nature described in sections 30 to 36 and not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee), laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business or profession shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession". Explanation : For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that any expenditure incurred by an assessee for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bout 50 per cent of those expenses. However, the reasoning for disallowance of the rest, i.e. that the assessee could claim only a proportion of such expenses, since advertising expenses were to be borne by the sister concern dealer, and that the proportion was in respect of its territory, was not upheld. This Court does not see any fallacy in the Tribunal's approach or reasoning, on this aspect. One is not unmindful of the concerns of a business which engages in sale of consumer items, and faces continuous competition. Brand promotion enhances the visibility of given products or services, and are often perceived as conferring a competitive advantage on those who adopt those strategies or schemes. Expenditure towards that end is based on pure commercial expediency, which the revenue in this case, ought to have recognised, and allowed. The revenue's arguments on this point too are insubstantial." 48. The observations made by the Hon'ble jurisdictional Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. ITC Hotels (2014)(47 taxmann.com 215) on the concept of "enduring benefit" is relevant here and the same is extracted below:- "6. The first substantial question of law relates t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d picture of the whole operation in respect of which the expenditure has been incurred. But a few tests formulated by the Courts may be referred to as they might help to arrive at a correct decision of the controversy between the parties. One celebrated test is that laid down by Lord Cave L.C. in Atherton Vs. British Insulated & Helsby Cables Ltd. (1925) 10 Tax Cases 155 (HL), where the learned Law Lord stated : "...when an expenditure is made, not only once and for all, but with a view to bringing into existence an asset or an advantage for the enduring benefit of a trade, I think that there is very good reason (in the absence of special circumstances leading to an opposite condition) for treating such an expenditure as properly attributable not to revenue but to capital". This test, as the parenthetical clause shows, must yield where there are special circumstances leading to a contrary conclusion and, as pointed out by Lord Radcliffe in CIT v. Nchanga Consolidated Copper Mines Ltd. [1965] 58 ITR 241 (PC) : TC16R.991, it would be misleading to suppose that in all cases, securing a benefit for the business would be, prima facie, capital expenditure "so long as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court." 49. Respectfully following the above cited decisions, we set aside the order passed by AO on this issue and direct him to allow the impugned sponsorship expenses as revenue expenditure." 12.6.2 Following the above order the ITAT in assessee's own case for assessment year 2012-2013 (supra), we allow deduction of sales promotion and advertisement expenses of Rs. 44, 33, 55, 403. As the entire expenses are allowed as revenue expenditure, the question of depreciation does not arise." 11.6 Following the above order of the Tribunal in the case of United Spirits Limited (supra), we allow deduction in respect of brand promotion expenses. It is ordered accordingly. Capital gains and addition u/s 115JB of the I.T. Act (Ground 7) (7.1 to 7.7) 12. During the financial year 2010-11, the Hon'ble High Court of Madras vide order dated 01.02.2011 sanctioned a composite scheme of amalgamation ("Scheme") and allowed the amalgamation of the following transferor companies with the assessee, which is the ultimate transferee company in the scheme: (i) Associated Breweries and Distilleries Limited ("ABDL") (ii) Millennium Alcobev Private Limited ("MAPL") (iii) Empee Breweries Limi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. The amount so received was credited by the assessee to the General Reserve in as much as the Trust had accounted for income by way of capital gains and claimed exemption under section 10(38) of the I.T. Act. 12.2 The AO held that the assessee has used a colourable device in the form of the Trust to avoid payment of capital gains tax arising out of sale of the assessee's shares, by getting the shares allotted to the Trust following the merger / amalgamation. The AO opined that the receipt should have been offered to tax under the head capital gains by the assessee. The AO held that the income of Rs.140.49 forms a part of the P&L account as the transaction has been reported in the Notes to Accounts (para 6.7.6 of AO order). The AO therefore added the amount of Rs.140.49 crore to the total income of the assessee as per the normal computation as well as for the purposes of MAT under section 115JB of the I.T. Act. 12.3 Aggrieved by the order of the A.O. the assessee has raised this issue before the first appellate authority. The CIT(A) rejected the contentions of the assessee and upheld the addition made by the AO in the assessment order. The CIT(A) accordingly dismissed the ground ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lders, shares of the Assessee were allotted. The learned AR further submitted that the AO and CIT(A) erred in treating the Trust as a 'colourable device' without proving that the Trust was a sham or was illegal. Moreover, the AO and CIT(A) have conveniently brushed aside the fact that the Trust had declared the capital gains in its return of income and claimed exemption under section 10(38) of the Act which has been accepted by the Department. It was also submitted that the Trust cannot be branded as a 'colourable device' as no provisions of law has been violated by the assessee or the Trust. Further, even if the shares were cancelled without having allotted the same to the Trust, no capital gain would arise to the assessee. The learned AR further contended that the Department has accepted a similar transaction in the case of United Spirits Limited for the AY 2007-08 (refer page 32 to 36 of the paper book filed on 23.05.2022). It was stated that in the present case of the assessee, the Trust has paid securities transaction tax and following the rationale of the Department applied in United Spirits case (supra), the amount cannot be considered again in the hands of the assessee. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se. In such cases, the Hon'ble Tribunals have held that the Income from Capital Gains is not taxable. One such case is Escorts Benefit Welfare Trust, wherein on similar facts, the transaction has been accepted and held as not taxable in the hands of the Trust. x) Similar transaction in the case of the erstwhile Group company, United Spirits Ltd., has been accepted by the Department. There is no reason or rationale to treat it as taxable income in the case of the assessee. 12.5 The learned DR supported the orders of the A.O. and the CIT(A). 12.6 We have heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. Pursuant to the amalgamation, the assessee issued shares in its own company to UBL Benefit Trust as consideration for 50% beneficial ownership in EBL held through MAPL. The gains realized upon its sale by the Trust were remitted to the beneficiary i.e., the assessee. Considering that the obligations of the trustees were discharged, the trust was terminated in accordance with the provisions of the trust deed. The Assessee credited the net proceeds to the General Reserve as the Trust had accounted for the income by way of capital gains and claimed exemption under section 10( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of section 115JB of the I.T. Act, the lower authorities have sought to include the subject amount as a part of 'book profits' though the same is added to the General Reserves and not in the profit and loss account. In the event of books of accounts being prepared in accordance with the provisions of the relevant Companies Act, it is well accepted that the AO has no jurisdiction to go behind net profit shown in the profit and loss account except to the extent provided therein. As it has been held above that the said amount is not the income of the Assessee but of the Trust, there is no question of considering it as a part of book profits. On going through the impugned orders there is no effort to establish the same. Given the same, the CIT(A)/AO have erred in disturbing the book profit as considered by the Assessee. It is ordered accordingly. Short credit of taxes (Ground No.8) (8.1) 13. The assessee in the return of income filed for AY 2012- 2013 had claimed TDS credit of Rs.14, 19, 20, 442 and TCS of Rs.5, 49, 39, 354 totaling to Rs.19, 68, 59, 796. The AO restricted the claim to Rs.19, 55, 21, 320. The CIT(A) has not adjudicated this issue though raised as Ground No.20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
