9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (6) TMI 378X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d any infirmity in the order passed by the CIT(A) on this issue. Accordingly, the issue raised by the assessee is hereby dismissed. Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) - expenses incurred towards contractual payment for which TDS was not deducted - HELD THAT:- DR find that when the assessee has failed to substantiate its ground before the AO as well as ld. CIT(A) on the issue involved. CIT(A) sustained the order of ld. AO, as assessee stated before the AO that due to inadvertent lapse assessee could not deduct TDS and had no objection to the proposed disallowance made by the AO. Therefore, sustaining the order of AO by ld. CIT(A) is correct and accordingly we dismiss the ground taken by the assessee on the instant issue involved. Leave encashment di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted against the order dated 20.10.2023 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax, Appeals, NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the ld. CIT(A) ]. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. For that, the appellate Order of the Ld. CIT(A) NFAC dated 20/10/2022, rejected the grounds raised for disallowing the Rs 1,82,763/- u/s 14A r.w. ruled 8D which is wrong and unwarranted, uncalled for bad in law and hence should not be sustain under the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. For that, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) NFAC dismissing the appeal as per order dated 20/10/2022 of Rs 6,65,523/- u/s 40(a)(ia) was also wholly unjustified and unwarranted and bad in law under the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. For that, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns of the Act. In response to the notice, the ld. AR of the assessee appeared before the ld. AO time to time and furnishes various details and submissions as asked for. After considering the submission of the assessee, the ld. AO disallowed various expenses as claimed by the assessee in following manner: i. Disallowance of wrongly claimed expenditure u/s 14A/8D of Rs. 1,82,763/-. ii. Disallowance of expenditure on unapproved gratuity scheme of Rs. 5,94,573/-. iii. Disallowance of expenditure u/s 40(a)(ia) for failure to deduct tax of Rs. 6,65,523/-. iv. Deposit of employees contribution to PF ESI beyond due date of Rs. 4,52,535/-. v. Disallowance of leave encashment not paid within specified date of Rs. 4,12,988/-. vi. Disallowance of penal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h disallowance of Rs. 1,82,763/- as made by the AO by applying rule 8D and ground taken by assessee was rejected. Therefore, ld. DR prayed before this bench to sustain the order of ld. CIT(A) on this issue by rejecting the grounds taken by the assessee. 7. We after going through the facts of the case and perused the record find that instant disallowance of Rs. 1,82,763/- as made by AO which was applying rule 8D while framing the assessment order was correct since assessee has failed to furnish the details of fund utilized for making such investment whether those from loans and on its own funds before the AO as well as ld. CIT(A). Therefore, both the lower authority has no other option but to sustain the order passed by the ld. AO on this is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee has failed to substantiate its ground before the AO as well as ld. CIT(A) on the issue involved. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) sustained the order of ld. AO, as assessee stated before the AO that due to inadvertent lapse assessee could not deduct TDS and had no objection to the proposed disallowance made by the AO. Therefore, sustaining the order of AO by ld. CIT(A) is correct and accordingly we dismiss the ground taken by the assessee on the instant issue involved. 10. Ground no. 3 is in relation with leave encashment where assessee has failed to pay leave encashment to the employees amounting to Rs. 4,12,988/- before the date of filing of return u/s 139(1) of the Act as required u/s 43B of the Act which according to the assessee is unjus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... On this issue, the contention of the assessee in its ground of appeal is that the above addition was unwarranted and bad in law. The ld. DR on the instant issue raised by the assessee stated that instant issue involved come to the rest by the recent verdict of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Chekmate Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2022) 143 taxmann.com 178 (SC) dated 12.10.2022 wherein it has been held that deduction u/s 36(1)(va) in respect of delayed deposit of amount collected towards employees contribution to PF cannot be claimed when deposited within the due date of filing of return even when read with Section 43B of the Income-tax Act,1961. 13. Accordingly, we follow the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court as in the case of Checkmate Service ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
