9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (2) TMI 95X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 3,891 Rs. 3,244 and Rs. 6,111 and disallowed the balance on the ground that the said amounts did not relate to the assessment years under consideration or were not levied therein. On appeal, the CIT(A) upheld the orders of the ITO on the ground that the amounts were not levied in the assessment years under consideration. 3. It was argued before us by the authorised representative for the assessee that the municipal taxes were increased by the Corporation and were contested by the assessee but were subsequently finalised and such municipal taxes as finally settled for the assessment years under consideration were stated in p. 1 of the paper book. It was claimed that these amounts should have been allowed because these were the amounts a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the Corporation and that such taxes had not been paid by the assessee who only debited its P L A/c by Rs. 1,05,764. On the basis of the quantum of municipal tax, the ITO allowed only a sum of Rs. 86,686. He held that the balance, that is the difference between Rs. 1,05,764 and Rs. 86,686 represented the arrear of taxes paid. On appeal, the AAC upheld the order of the ITO on the ground that out of the sum of Rs. 1,05,764 debited in the accounts of the assessee only an amount of Rs. 86,686 related to the year under appeal. Being aggrieved the assessee preferred a further appeal to the Tribunal. On the basis of a chart filed by the assessee in this appeal showing the details of the municipal tax liability, which was not challenged by the R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t it is not entitled to the deductions claimed if the amounts were not levied in the respective assessment years under consideration. The ITO does not seem to have examined this aspect of the matter. So in setting aside the orders of the authorities below we remand the matter to the ITO and direct him to examine if the amounts were levied in these assessment years and only in such event to allow the same. Another ground in the asst. yr. 1968-69 relates to disallowance of Rs. 3,43,000 by the authorities below. It was disallowed by the ITO with the following observation "Provision for loss on Foreign Exchange Contract. No details have been filed to prove that the loss actually arose during the year under assessment." 4. On appeal the CI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... therefore, allowable. As such we direct the ITO to allow the said sum in computing the income of the assessee. 6. The last objection in the asst. yr. 1968-69 relates to disallowance of collection charges. The assessee's claim on account of building maintenance at Rs. 22,328 was disallowed by the ITO for being considered while dealing with the income from house property. But the ITO did not at all consider this point while computing the income from house property. On appeal, the CIT(A) disallowed the claim for collection charges. The authorised representative for the assessee contended that the reason given by the CIT(A) for disallowance of collection charges is without force and that collection charge at 6 per cent should have been allow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
