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>ITAT affirms CIT (A) on tax disallowance & addition of forfeited money as taxable income</h1> <h3>Income Tax Officer Versus M/s Royal Toshali Holiday Club Pvt. Ltd.</h3> Income Tax Officer Versus M/s Royal Toshali Holiday Club Pvt. Ltd. - TMI Issues:1. Disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of reimbursement of expenditure paid to a company without TDS deduction.2. Addition of 50% of forfeited money by the assessee from defaulters as taxable income.Issue 1 - Disallowance under section 40(a)(ia):The Revenue appealed against the CIT (A) order deleting the disallowance made under section 40(a)(ia) of reimbursement of expenditure paid to a company without TDS deduction. The AO contended that the reimbursement was part of commission subject to TDS. The CIT (A) considered submissions, cited legal precedents, and deleted the disallowance based on the nature of the expenditure and the TDS already applied to the commission. The ITAT upheld the CIT (A) decision, noting that the reimbursement of specific expenses did not warrant tax deduction as clarified by the jurisdictional High Court.Issue 2 - Addition of forfeited money as taxable income:The second issue revolved around adding 50% of the forfeited money by the assessee from defaulters as taxable income. The AO brought this amount to tax despite objections from the assessee. The assessee followed a method of accounting where forfeited amounts were treated as income and liability based on specific circumstances. The CIT (A) relied on a Supreme Court decision and directed the AO to delete the addition. The ITAT supported the CIT (A) decision, emphasizing the consistent and rational accounting treatment by the assessee, which was accepted in previous years. The ITAT found no evasion of income, only a difference in timing of tax liability, and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.In conclusion, the ITAT affirmed the CIT (A) orders in both issues, highlighting the importance of consistent accounting practices and adherence to legal precedents in determining tax liabilities. The judgments emphasized the significance of factual considerations, legal interpretations, and the rationale behind the accounting methods followed by the assessee in arriving at the decisions.
TaxTMI 