TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether disallowance of JCB hire charges under section 40(a)(ia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was sustainable when the tax deductible at source had been paid before the due date for filing the return and the amended proviso was to be applied retrospectively; (ii) Whether the ad hoc disallowance out of commission expenses was justified in the absence of material to show that the expenditure was not for business purposes; (iii) Whether the addition made under section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in respect of certain unsecured loans was sustainable when the creditors had furnished confirmations and affidavits and the department had not brought contrary material on record.
Issue (i): Whether disallowance of JCB hire charges under section 40(a)(ia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was sustainable when the tax deductible at source had been paid before the due date for filing the return and the amended proviso was to be applied retrospectively.
Analysis: The expenditure was fully paid before the due date under section 139(1) and nothing remained payable on that date. The substituted proviso to section 40(a)(ia), though inserted by the Finance Act, 2010, was treated as curative and retrospective from 01.04.2005. On that basis, the disallowance could not survive.
Conclusion: The deletion of the disallowance was upheld and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.
Issue (ii): Whether the ad hoc disallowance out of commission expenses was justified in the absence of material to show that the expenditure was not for business purposes.
Analysis: The disallowance was made without any supporting material or enquiry establishing that the commission expenditure was not incurred for business purposes. Mere reliance on internal vouchers or cash payment, without more, was insufficient to sustain a unilateral estimate of disallowance.
Conclusion: The deletion of the ad hoc disallowance was upheld and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.
Issue (iii): Whether the addition made under section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in respect of certain unsecured loans was sustainable when the creditors had furnished confirmations and affidavits and the department had not brought contrary material on record.
Analysis: The assessee had produced confirmations and affidavits showing identity and source of the creditors, and the Assessing Officer himself accepted the identity of the creditors and did not conduct any contrary enquiry to show that the credits were bogus or represented undisclosed income. In the absence of corroborative evidence rebutting the documentary material, the addition under section 68 could not be sustained.
Conclusion: The deletion of the addition was upheld and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The departmental appeal failed on all the issues and the relief granted by the first appellate authority was sustained in full.
Ratio Decidendi: A disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) cannot be sustained where the tax has been paid before the due date and the applicable proviso is curative and retrospective, while additions under section 68 require rebuttal of the assessee's confirmations and affidavits by cogent contrary material; ad hoc disallowances unsupported by evidence are not permissible.
TaxTMI 
