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>High Court Upholds Tax Dispute Rulings Dismissing Revenue's Appeal on Service Charges & Expenses</h1> <h3>Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi – 18 Versus M/s. DLF Commercial Projects Corporation</h3> Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi – 18 Versus M/s. DLF Commercial Projects Corporation - [2019] 411 ITR 716 (Del) Issues:1. Disallowance of service charges and reimbursement expenses for Assessment Years 2009-10 and 2010-11.2. Disallowance of amounts claimed to have been paid to sundry creditors.3. Taxation of net expenditure credits received from public depositors under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act for AY 2009-10.Analysis:Issue 1: Disallowance of service charges and reimbursement expensesThe Revenue challenged the lower authorities' findings regarding disallowance of service charges and reimbursement expenses paid to a sister concern for AY 2009-10 and 2010-11. The Assessing Officer disallowed the amounts, alleging improper accounting for reimbursement of service charges. However, the CIT(A) and ITAT granted relief based on agreements and invoices presented by the assessee. The High Court cited a previous judgment rejecting a similar claim by the Revenue, emphasizing that reimbursement of expenses is not taxable income. The Court supported its decision with legal precedents and upheld the lower authorities' findings, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.Issue 2: Disallowance of amounts paid to sundry creditorsThe second question pertained to the disallowance of amounts paid to sundry creditors, including a specific sum claimed under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act. The AO rejected the books but accepted the credits while ignoring the debits, leading to a deficiency. Both CIT(A) and ITAT found sufficient material to support the claim, and the High Court concluded that no substantial question of law arose, affirming the lower authorities' decision.Issue 3: Taxation of net expenditure credits from public depositorsRegarding the taxation of net expenditure credits received from public depositors for AY 2009-10, the AO disallowed the amount due to the assessee's alleged failure to establish the genuineness and creditworthiness of the public deposits. However, both CIT(A) and ITAT set aside the disallowance, noting that the necessary details were provided for verification. As the AO did not conduct further inquiries, the burden of proof was not met to tax the amount under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The High Court upheld the decisions of CIT(A) and ITAT, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.In conclusion, the High Court found no substantial question of law in the issues raised by the Revenue, affirming the lower authorities' decisions and dismissing the appeals accordingly.
TaxTMI 