TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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>Tribunal decision: deductions, cash credits, expenses upheld; interest to partners remanded</h1> The tribunal partly allowed the appeal for statistical purposes. The disallowance of deduction for house tax paid on the factory building was upheld due ... - Issues:1. Disallowance of deduction for house tax paid on factory building.2. Disallowance under section 40(2) of the Act.3. Treatment of cash credits as unexplained under section 68 of the Act.4. Disallowance of miscellaneous expenses.5. Disallowance of interest paid to partners under section 40(b) of the Act.Issue 1: Disallowance of deduction for house tax paid on factory building:The assessee claimed a deduction of Rs. 22,280 for house tax paid on a factory building. The Municipal Committee had determined the annual rental value, leading to a house tax liability for several years. The ITO disallowed the deduction, citing that the liability was created when the demand was raised, not when paid. The CIT(A) upheld this decision. The assessee argued that the liability had not crystallized due to pending litigation. However, it was found that the dispute was not related to house tax but to octroi duty. The High Court's decision was available before the relevant assessment year, and the deduction should have been claimed in the appropriate accounting periods. The tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order, stating that the deduction was not allowable for the assessment year in question.Issue 2: Disallowance under section 40(2) of the Act:The assessee's ground for disallowance of Rs. 28,800 under section 40(2) was found to not arise from the CIT(A)'s order. The counsel for the assessee conceded this, and the ground was dismissed as infructuous.Issue 3: Treatment of cash credits as unexplained under section 68 of the Act:Cash credits totaling Rs. 23,000 were treated as unexplained income by the ITO as the creditor could not be produced as evidence. The CIT(A) rejected an affidavit from the creditor, stating that the creditor could not afford to provide such a substantial advance. The tribunal found that the CIT(A) had considered the affidavit but summarily rejected it. The issue was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration and to allow additional evidence.Issue 4: Disallowance of miscellaneous expenses:The ITO disallowed Rs. 2,000 out of claimed miscellaneous expenses of Rs. 25,800, citing them as inadmissible. The CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance, stating the expenses were unvouched and inadmissible. The tribunal upheld this decision, as no evidence was presented to prove otherwise.Issue 5: Disallowance of interest paid to partners under section 40(b) of the Act:The assessee sought to substitute the ground related to disallowance of interest and salaries paid to partners under section 40(b) of the Act. The tribunal admitted the substituted ground for fresh determination by the CIT(A) as the issue was not properly considered. The matter was to be reassessed with adequate hearing opportunities for both the assessee and the ITO.In conclusion, the appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes, with various issues being addressed and decisions made by the tribunal regarding the disallowances and deductions claimed by the assessee.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
