TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (1) TMI 683
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assessee has claimed deduction without treating the same as actual liability in its books of account. (ii) learned CIT(A) erred in law in deleting disallowance of Rs. 3,66,000/- wrongly claimed on account of prior period expenses, disregarding the fact that assessee follows mercantile system of accounting. (iii) learned CIT(A) erred in law in deleting addition of Rs. 29,382/- made on a/c of disallowance of foreign commission u/s40(a)(i) of the IT Act disregarding the fact that assessee company failed to deduct tax at source in terms of the provisions of Section 195." 2. The ground no.1 relates to deletion of disallowance of Rs. 3,71,42,093/- u/s.43B of the Act by the CIT(A). 3. The brief facts of the case are that t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....under: "4.6 As the appellant has paid the amount of Rs. 3,71,42,093/-towards excise duty by way of adjustment of refund against the above demand of Rs. 4.55 crores and therefore, it is entitled for deduction of this amount of Rs. 3,71,42,093/- u/s 43B of the IT Act provided that such amount of Rs. 3,71,42,093/- has not been claimed by the appellant in earlier years u/s 43B or under any other section of the IT Act. The appellant's AR and the appellant in above submission dated 27-07- 2012 and submission dated 17-08-2012 have stated that the refund of Rs. 3,71,42,093/- has not been claimed in any of the earlier previous years u/s.43B. In view of this the AO is directed to verify whether this amount of refund of Rs. 3,71,42,093/- ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... crore. We note that the order passed by the CIT(A) had taken into consideration all the issues raised concerning the all the material aspects of the case and clear cut finding was given that assessee was entitled to the said deduction u/s.43B of the Act on the payment basis and further held that the demand raised was not on account of penalty as claimed by the A.O.but was a routine demand. We are in full agreement with CIT(A) on this point. The assessee has also given note in the "notes to accounts" to the annual account mentioning the facts qua the said demand raised by the Excise Department and adjustment of refund of Rs. 3.71Crore against that demand though not accounted for in the books of accounts. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rides the method of accounting consistently followed and provides for the deduction of statutory liabilities in the year of payment irrespective of the year in which the liability is incurred. The case of the assessee is squarely covered by the ratio laid down in the various decisions discussed above and by respectfully following these decisions, we dismiss the appeal of the Revenue on this point. 4. The issue in the second ground of appeal relates to the deletion of disallowance on account of Panchayat tax of Rs. 3,66,000/-. 5. The brief facts are that the assessee received notice for panchayat tax during the year which included the tax pertaining to earlier years. The ld. A.O. disallowed Rs. 3,66,000/- as being related to earlier ye....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ground. 6. The third ground of appeal related to deletion of addition of Rs. 29,382/- made disallowance on account of foreign commission. 7. During the year, the assessee debited Rs. 29,382/- on account of export commission. The ld. A.O. disallowed the said expense by holding that the assessee has not complied with the provision of tax deduction at source and therefore, the said expense was not deductible under the provisions of Section 40(a)(i) of the Act and also observed that similar expenses were also disallowed in the earlier years. The ld. CIT(A) deleted the disallowance on the ground that the similar issue was decided in favour of assessee by CIT(A), Baroda vide Order No.CAB/VI-317/09-10 dated 29.03.2010. The ld. D.R. relied on....