Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Tribunal rules guarantee fee as capital expenditure, upholds addition for non-TDS on consultancy charges</h1> <h3>M/s Haryana State Roads & Bridges Development Corp. Ltd. Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Panchkula Circle,</h3> M/s Haryana State Roads & Bridges Development Corp. Ltd. Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Panchkula Circle, - TMI Issues Involved:1. Whether the guarantee fee paid by the assessee should be treated as capital expenditure or revenue expenditure.2. Whether the addition of Rs. 4,03,129/- under section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act was justified due to non-deduction of TDS on consultancy charges.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Treatment of Guarantee Fee as Capital or Revenue Expenditure:The assessee contested the order of the CIT(Appeals) which upheld the addition of Rs. 96,91,000/- by treating the guarantee fee paid as capital expenditure. The Assessing Officer (AO) had noted that the assessee claimed guarantee fees of Rs. 96,91,000/- paid to the State of Haryana for guaranteeing a loan from HUDCO. The AO concluded that since the loan was capitalized for projects, the guarantee fees should also be capitalized, thus treating it as capital expenditure rather than revenue expenditure.The assessee argued that the guarantee fee was a one-time, non-refundable expense and should be considered revenue expenditure. The CIT(Appeals), however, upheld the AO's decision, noting that the guarantee fee was inherently capital in nature as it was related to loans used for capital projects. The CIT(Appeals) referenced the decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT (Central), Ludhiana Vs Sobhag Textile Pvt. Ltd., which held that guarantee commission paid for the purchase of machinery was of a capital nature.The Tribunal, after hearing both parties, agreed with the CIT(Appeals). It was noted that the assessee had amortized the guarantee fee over the period of the loan in its books of account, indicating that the fee was treated as a capital expenditure. The Tribunal also found that the guarantee fee paid to the State Government was a diversion of income and not wholly and exclusively for business purposes, as required under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Appeals)'s finding that the expenditure was capital in nature and dismissed this ground of appeal.2. Addition under Section 40(a)(ia) for Non-Deduction of TDS:The assessee challenged the addition of Rs. 4,03,129/- under section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act for non-deduction of TDS on consultancy charges paid to M/s Consulting Engg. Associates. The AO disallowed the payment as the assessee had not deducted TDS on the said amount.The assessee argued before the CIT(Appeals) that Section 40(a)(ia) applies only to amounts payable and not to amounts already paid. However, the CIT(Appeals) relied on the decisions of the Calcutta High Court in Cresent Exports Syndicate and the Gujarat High Court in Sikandar Khan N. Tanwar, which held that the provisions apply to both paid and payable amounts. Consequently, the CIT(Appeals) upheld the AO's addition.Before the Tribunal, the assessee submitted additional evidence claiming that TDS had been deducted, but this evidence was not presented before the authorities below. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not filed any application for admission of additional evidence and had not explained why the evidence was not submitted earlier. The Tribunal also referenced the decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in PMS Diesels, which held that the requirement to deduct TDS is mandatory regardless of the accounting method.Given the lack of justification for the additional evidence and the established legal precedent, the Tribunal dismissed this ground of appeal, affirming the CIT(Appeals)'s decision.Conclusion:The Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the assessee on both grounds, confirming the CIT(Appeals)'s decisions that the guarantee fee was capital expenditure and that the addition under Section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS was justified.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found