TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (9) TMI 225
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) erred in allowing the claim of Rs. 29,90,467/- disallowed u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act holding that provisions of section 194J is not applicable." 3. Ground no.2 is only the argument in support of above ground of appeal. 4. The facts of the case are that the assessee deducted the tax from the payment made to Elecon Information Technology Ltd.(EITL) u/s.194C. As per Assessing Officer, deduction of tax at source ought to have been made u/s.194J. The total payment made by the assessee was Rs. 49,84,111/-. Since, as per Assessing Officer, assessee deducted the tax at a lower rate , he disallowed 3/5th of the payment u/s.40(a)(ia). On appeal, the CIT(A) deleted the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. 1 & 2 of Revenue's appeal. 6. Ground no.3 of the Revenue's appeal reads as under: "3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) erred in allowing the claim of Rs. 11,11,534/- regarding notified area tax liability paid as per provisions of section 43B of the Act without considering the fact that any expense in connection with closed business is not an allowable deduction u/s. 43B of the Act." 7. The facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer disallowed a sum of Rs. 11,11,534/- out of notified area tax liability paid by the assessee on the ground that it was pertinent to the business of Kaniska Sttel Unit, which was closed during year under consideration. On appeal, the CIT(A) recorded t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Engineers etc. As per such Scheme, the persons who achieved the target were entitled to Egypt tour. That on the basis of performance, during the accounting year relevant to assessment year under consideration tour was arranged next year. That the Assessing Officer disallowed the provision made towards the tour expenses on the only ground that the liability has not been accrued because the tour was actually arranged in the next year. He stated that the tour was on the basis of performance of the assessee's clients, sub commission agents, Engineers etc. during the year under consideration. Therefore, the liability of the assessee to take them on tour has accrued during the year under consideration. He also stated that Assessing Officer has n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sion agents, and engineers and due to which the sale promotion expenses of all the branches taken together has increased from 3.08 lac to 28.23 lacs. 3.3 The assessee has also furnished the photocopy of journal vouchers. On perusal of the said voucher it is found that the journal voucher was created on 21.4.2007 i.e. after the end of the year. Effective date was shown to be 31.3.2007. The sale promotion accounts was debited by Rs. 24,88,000/- and outstanding liabilities was credited by the same amount. The narration for the said journal entry mentions "provision for agent tour Egypt". 3.4 The payment voucher of Egypt tour shows that payment of Rs. 41,37,815/- was made on 30.6.2007 to Orbit Corporate Tours and Travels Pvt. Ltd. for Egy....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....expenses mainly on the ground that there was no basis for the provision and the tour was actually conducted in the next year and all the expenditures were actually incurred in next year. In our opinion, when the assessee has promised to arrange the tour for its clients, sub commission agents and Engineers on the basis of their performance during the year under consideration, then persons who achieved the target given by the assessee have acquired the right to go on tour as per the Scheme of assessee. Therefore, once the assessee's clients, commission agents and Engineers fulfill the target given to them, the assessee incurs the liability to take them on tour to Egypt as per the Scheme. Therefore, the provision for Egypt tour is to be allowe....