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 favors assessee on interest reserve and auditor payment disputes.</h1> <h3>LILUAH CO-OP BANK LTD Versus ADDL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ASSTT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX</h3> LILUAH CO-OP BANK LTD Versus ADDL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ASSTT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - TMI Issues:1. Disallowance of overdue interest reserve.2. Disallowance of payment to Internal Tax Auditor.Analysis:Issue 1: Disallowance of overdue interest reserveThe Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed the overdue interest reserve, stating it was not based on actual facts and lacked justification. The AO mentioned the provision was not supported by evidence of bad loans or interest receivable, leading to disallowance. The Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) upheld the disallowance, stating that provisions and contingencies are not allowable expenditures under the Income Tax Act. The CIT noted the absence of material supporting the claim, leading to the disallowance. However, the Appellate Tribunal held in favor of the assessee, stating that provisions made following RBI guidelines are allowable. The Tribunal noted the consistency of similar provisions in the past, allowing the claim based on RBI guidelines. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the lower authorities' orders, ruling in favor of the assessee.Issue 2: Disallowance of payment to Internal Tax AuditorRegarding the disallowance of payment to the Internal Tax Auditor, the AO added back the amount under section 40(a)(ia) for failure to deduct tax. The assessee argued that the payments were salary payments to officers engaged in internal audit work, supported by Form-16 certificates. The CIT accepted the assessee's position, ruling that the payments did not attract TDS liability under section 194J. The Tribunal upheld the CIT's decision, emphasizing that as the payments were related to salary, there was no requirement for TDS deduction under section 194J. Subsequently, the Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, finding no fault in the CIT's order.In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee in both issues, allowing the overdue interest reserve claim based on RBI guidelines and upholding the non-disallowance of payment to the Internal Tax Auditor as it pertained to salary payments not subject to TDS.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
