AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (7) TMI 907
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ectors. (2) The C.I. T. (A) erred in not appreciating that the A.O. made the disallowance simply relying on the erroneous Remark in Auditors' Report, without verifying the facts. (3) The C.I.T. (A) has not appreciated the Auditor's remark in correct perspective, which clearly mentions in the report that application for sanction of additional remuneration has been made to the Central Govt. and sanction is awaited. (4) The C.I.T.(A) has overlooked the ITAT's order in appellant's own case in earlier years re: allow ability of remuneration duly sanctioned by the Central Government under the provisions of the Companies Act. (5) The C.I.T. (A) erred in not appreciating that the Central Governmen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....idences were in fact not in the assessment records. (7) The C.I.T. (A) erred in not appreciating that the appellant deducted TDS before the year end from the provision made for relevant expenses and paid the TDS in various installment before due date for filing the Return of Income i.e. 30th Sept., 2009, and the Auditors Report was erroneous to that extent. (8) The C.I.T. (A) erred in not appreciating that amendment in Sec.40(a)(ia) in 1. Tax Act, 1961 made by Finance Act, 2010 has retrospective effect. 3. The appellant craves leave to alter, amend, expand or change the grounds of appeal as may be advised. Assessee-company, engaged in the business of manufacture, exports and domestic sales of Blister packaging ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ore the FAA. Before him, it was contended that the auditors had not considered schedule 13 of the Companies Act while working out the remuneration, that an application was made in Form NO.25A to the Central Government for approval of excess remuneration which was sanctioned vide letter dated 14.04.2010,that the excess remuneration paid to the Directors was an allowable expenditure. After considering the submissions of the assessee and the assessment order, the FAA held that assesse's own auditor had reported the payment of excess remuneration, that a copy of sanctioned letter granted by the Central Government for excessive remuneration paid was filed before him. The FAA called for a remand report from the AO with regard to the additiona....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the FAA, we decide ground no. 2 in favour of the assessee. " 3. At page no.7-9 of the paper book is the approval of the Central Government allowing the assessee to pay excess remuneration to the Director. As the facts and circumstances of the year under appeal are similar to the facts of the earlier year, therefore, following the order for that year,we are deciding ground no.1 in favour of the assessee. 4. Next ground of appeal deals with disallowance of Rs. 18.72 lakhs uls.40(a)(ia)of the Act. During the assessment proceedings, the AO found that TDS had not been deducted on Rs. 18.72 lakhs, that the said amount was not added in computation of income. He issued a show cause notice to the assessee in that regard. ln its reply, the ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Delhi High Court. Departmental Representative(DR)supported the order of the FAA. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material before us. We find that the assessee had filed additional evidences, that same were not admitted by the F AA, that the assessee had filed composite certificate of deducting taxes. It is found that Hon'ble Delhi High Court has in the matter of Naresh Kumar(supra) has held that the proviso was applicable with retrospective effect. Following is the decision of the Hon'ble Court: Provisions relating to deduction of tax at source are important as this ensures that tax so deducted gets deposited with the Government and non-taxpayers/filers can be identified. The deductees do not suffer and ar....