2014 (5) TMI 1140 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal Upholds Compensatory Business Expense, Dismisses Appeal, Remands TDS Issue for Reconsideration

Dy. CIT, Circle-3, Pune Versus Bhandari Associates

Dy. CIT, Circle-3, Pune Versus Bhandari Associates - TMI Issues Involved:1. Deletion of disallowance of Rs. 18,00,000/- as additional cost of land.2. Confirmation of addition of Rs. 1,80,440/- under section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Deletion of disallowance of Rs. 18,00,000/- as additional cost of land:The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance of Rs. 18,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO). The AO observed that as per the development agreement dated 17-5-2005, the assessee was granted development rights for a land at Baner for Rs. 61,00,000/-. Due to a civil suit, the development work was delayed, and the assessee paid an additional Rs. 18,00,000/- to the landowners on 17-7-2007. The AO disallowed this payment, arguing it was not mentioned in the original agreement and thus not a contractual liability.The assessee contended that the additional payment was agreed upon due to the delay in payment caused by the litigation, which increased the land's price. A memorandum of understanding was made, and the payment was made via crossed account payee cheque. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, citing that compensation for breach of contract is an allowable business expense, supported by judicial precedents such as CIT Vs Amalgamated Development Ltd and others.Upon review, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the AO did not dispute the payment's occurrence but disallowed it based on the absence of an obligation in the original agreement. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order and dismissed the Revenue's grounds.2. Confirmation of addition of Rs. 1,80,440/- under section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS:The assessee's cross-objection challenged the CIT(A)'s confirmation of the addition of Rs. 1,80,440/- under section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS on payments made to 'Akruti' for printing. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's disallowance based on the audit report indicating no TDS was made.The assessee argued that disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) applies only to amounts payable, not already paid, referencing the Chennai Tribunal's decision in ITO Vs. M/s. Theekathir Press and the Supreme Court's judgment in CIT Vs. Vegetable Products Ltd. Alternatively, the assessee contended that amendments to section 40(a)(ia) by the Finance Act, 2010 and 2012 should be applied retrospectively, citing judicial decisions supporting this view.The Tribunal noted the Pune Bench's decision in Shri Vinay Ashwinikumar Joneja Vs. ITO, which held that section 40(a)(ia) applies even if no amount is payable at year-end. However, considering the new legal argument about retrospective application of amendments, the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention. Following the Cochin Bench's approach in Antony D. Mundackal Vs. The ACIT, the Tribunal restored the issue to the AO to examine the applicability of the second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) and decide afresh, ensuring due opportunity for the assessee.Conclusion:The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding the Rs. 18,00,000/- disallowance and allowed the assessee's cross-objection for statistical purposes, remanding the issue of Rs. 1,80,440/- addition to the AO for reconsideration.