TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appellate tribunal upholds decision on disallowed expenditure, emphasizes valid claims in profit-loss account</h1> <h3>ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 11(1), HYDERABAD Versus M/S GODAVARI DEVELOPERS</h3> ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 11(1), HYDERABAD Versus M/S GODAVARI DEVELOPERS - TMI Issues:1. Disallowance of expenditure incurred on land development due to failure to deduct tax under section 194C.2. Disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) and subsequent appeal before CIT(A).3. CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition of disallowed expenditure.4. Revenue's appeal challenging CIT(A)'s decision.Issue 1: Disallowance of Expenditure:The appellant, a firm engaged in the business of development and sale of plots, filed a return declaring income for the assessment year 2007-08. The assessing officer disallowed an expenditure of Rs. 44,01,500 incurred on land development due to failure to deduct tax under section 194C. This disallowed amount was added back to the total income of the appellant, invoking section 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act.Issue 2: Disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) and Appeal:The assessee appealed before the CIT(A), providing details of the expenditure incurred on land development. The appellant contended that since the amounts were not claimed as expenditures in the profit and loss account, the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) was unwarranted. The CIT(A) referred to relevant case law and held that disallowing the expenditure without proper claim in the profit and loss account was not justified. Consequently, the CIT(A) deleted the addition of Rs. 44,01,500 made by the assessing officer.Issue 3: CIT(A)'s Decision:The CIT(A) based the decision on the principle that disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) requires a valid claim of expenditure in the profit and loss account. The CIT(A) emphasized that without such a claim, disallowance would not be sustainable. Citing a case precedent, the CIT(A) concluded that the assessing officer's action lacked proper application of mind, leading to the deletion of the disallowed amount.Issue 4: Revenue's Appeal:The revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s decision, arguing various grounds including the nature of the expenditure, the method of accounting, and the need for further verification. The appellate tribunal considered the arguments presented by both parties, reviewed the orders of the authorities below, and upheld the CIT(A)'s decision. The tribunal emphasized that without a valid claim in the profit and loss account, the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) was not justified, thereby dismissing the revenue's appeal.In conclusion, the appellate tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowed expenditure, emphasizing the importance of proper claim and accounting treatment for expenditures to avoid disallowances under relevant provisions of the IT Act.
TaxTMI 