Tribunal Decisions on TDS, Cash Payments, Expenditure, Losses, and Disallowances

The Tribunal confirmed the addition under section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS on payments to NBFCs but remanded the matter for verification. Cash payments exceeding Rs. 20,000 were disallowed under section 40A(3), with the Tribunal remanding for re-examination. Expenditure for refundable deposits to BMC and MHADA was allowed as revenue expenditure. Loss incurred without maintaining a consumption register was accepted. Non-genuine purchases addition was deleted after admitting additional evidence. Ad-hoc disallowance for cash expenses was deleted. Payment to a charitable trust without TDS was disallowed, subject to verification. Deemed ALV for vacant flats held as stock in trade was upheld.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Confirmation of addition under section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS on payments to NBFCs.
2. Confirmation of addition under section 40A(3) for cash payments exceeding Rs. 20,000.
3. Deletion of disallowance of expenditure for refundable deposits to BMC and MHADA.
4. Acceptance of loss incurred by the proprietary concern without maintaining a consumption register.
5. Deletion of addition for non-genuine purchases by admitting additional evidence.
6. Deletion of ad-hoc disallowance for various expenses incurred in cash.
7. Disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) for payment to a charitable trust without TDS.
8. Addition of deemed ALV for vacant flats held as stock in trade.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Confirmation of addition under section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS on payments to NBFCs:
The assessee was charged Rs. 88,85,487/- as interest payment to NBFCs without deducting TDS. The AO added this amount under section 40(a)(ia), which was confirmed by CIT(A). The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that TDS provisions apply to NBFCs. However, it noted that if the NBFCs disclosed the income and paid taxes, the assessee should not be treated as in default. The matter was remanded to the AO for verification.

2. Confirmation of addition under section 40A(3) for cash payments exceeding Rs. 20,000:
The assessee made cash payments of Rs. 7,98,000/- for river sand and water, which were disallowed under section 40A(3). The CIT(A) confirmed the addition, stating the purchases were not exempt under Rule 6DD(f). The Tribunal remanded the issue to the AO for re-examination, allowing the assessee another opportunity to justify the cash payments.

3. Deletion of disallowance of expenditure for refundable deposits to BMC and MHADA:
The AO disallowed Rs. 1,39,300/- paid as refundable deposits, considering them capital in nature. The CIT(A) allowed the claim, stating these deposits were revenue expenditure as they were never returned by BMC. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s decision, agreeing that the deposits were for business purposes and not capital expenditure.

4. Acceptance of loss incurred by the proprietary concern without maintaining a consumption register:
The AO reworked the loss of the proprietary concern by estimating consumption at 35% of turnover, adding Rs. 30,79,024/- to the income. The CIT(A) allowed the appeal, noting the AO failed to appreciate different consumption ratios for different cuisines and the purchases were well documented. The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)’s decision, finding no infirmity in the order.

5. Deletion of addition for non-genuine purchases by admitting additional evidence:
The AO added Rs. 20,65,289/- for non-genuine purchases when notices to suppliers were returned unserved. The CIT(A) deleted the addition after the assessee provided additional evidence. The Tribunal remanded the issue to the AO, directing verification of the new evidence, as the CIT(A) had not confronted the AO with these documents.

6. Deletion of ad-hoc disallowance for various expenses incurred in cash:
The AO disallowed Rs. 8,52,725/- on an ad-hoc basis for expenses incurred in cash without proper bills and vouchers. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, noting the AO did not point out any specific non-business expenditure. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s order, stating ad-hoc disallowance without specific defects is not justified.

7. Disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) for payment to a charitable trust without TDS:
The AO disallowed Rs. 18,00,000/- paid to a charitable trust without TDS under section 194I. The CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that TDS provisions applied even to charitable trusts but remanded the issue to the AO to verify if the trust had disclosed the income, in which case the assessee should not be treated as in default.

8. Addition of deemed ALV for vacant flats held as stock in trade:
The AO added deemed rent for unsold flats held as stock in trade, relying on the Delhi High Court decision in Ansal Housing Finance & Leasing Co. Ltd. The CIT(A) affirmed this addition. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s decision, agreeing that deemed rent should be assessed even for unsold flats held as stock in trade.

Conclusion:
The appeals by the assessee in ITA No.7642/M/2012, ITA No.1032/M/2017, and ITA No.2411/M/2017 are allowed for statistical purposes. The appeals in ITA No.1033/M/2017 and ITA No.2412/M/2017 are partly allowed for statistical purposes. The Revenue's appeal in ITA No.819/M/2013 is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

---