2025 (1) TMI 1348

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... payable under the head current liabilities is uncontroverted. As in the case of CIT vs. Noble and Hewitt (I) P. Ltd. [2007 (9) TMI 238 - DELHI HIGH COURT] held that where the assessee has neither claimed deduction on account of Service Tax nor has debited the amount to Profit and Loss account, the provisions of section 43B of the Act do not get attracted. Hence, question of disallowance of deduction not claimed does not arise. Decided in favour of assessee.
Shri Vikas Awasthy, Judicial Member And Shri Naveen Chandra, Accountant Member For the Appellant : Shri Ved Jain, Advocate, Shri Ayush Garg, Chartered Accountant For the Respondent : Shri Vipul Kashyap, Sr.DR ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM: This appeal by the assessee is directed a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Government Account. Whatever GST or Service Tax remains payable at the end of Financial Year is shown as GST payable or Service Tax payable under the head current liabilities. The CPC without considering submissions of the assessee made adjustment of aforesaid amount u/s. 43B of the Act. The assessee carried the issue in appeal before the CIT(A), but failed to get desired relief. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that disallowance u/s. 43B of the Act can only be made in respect of deductions which are claimed in profit and loss account. Where no deduction for any particular expense has been claimed in profit and loss account, no disallowance is required to be made. He reiterated that amount of GST payable has not been routed through .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... hence, disallowance was made u/s. 43B of the Act which was further upheld by the CIT(A). He prayed for dismissing appeal of the assessee. 5. Both sides heard, orders of the authorities below examined and case laws on which the ld. Counsel for the assessee placed reliance considered. At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee made statement at Bar that he has not pressing ground no. 5 of appeal assailing disallowance made u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Act in respect of late deposit of employees contribution towards Provident Fund. In view of statement made by ld. Counsel for the assessee, ground no. 5 of appeal is dismissed. 6. The ground no. 2 to 4 of appeal are in respect of single issue i.e. disallowance made under provisions of section 43B of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X