AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (12) TMI 307
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....has invested in equity shares of company, the income from which will not form part of total income. He, therefore, called upon the assessee to explain why disallowance of expenditure under section 14A r/w rule 8D should not be made in respect of such exempt income yielding assets. In response, the assessee objected to the proposed disallowance by stating that no expenditure was incurred for making such investments. As far as the interest expenditure is concerned, it was submitted that netting-off has to be allowed. The Assessing Officer, however, did not find merit in the submissions of the assessee and proceeded to compute disallowance in terms of rule 8D which was quantified at Rs. 21,96,361. 4. While challenging the aforesaid disallowance before the first appellate authority, the assessee submitted that, since, it had sufficient interest free funds available for making the investments in equity shares, disallowance of interest expenditure should not be made. As far as administrative expenditure is concerned, it was submitted, no specific expenditure was incurred for investment activities. After considering the submissions of the assessee, learned Commissioner (Appeals) did no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... it was not actually paid in the relevant previous year. 10. Though, the assessee challenged the disallowance before the first appellate authority, he also confirmed the disallowance. 11. The learned Authorised Representative submitted before us that the Assessing Officer may be directed to allow assessee's claim of deduction on actual payment. 12. Learned Departmental Representative supported the decision of the learned Commissioner (Appeals). 13. We have heard rival contentions and perused the material available on record. As could be seen, deduction claimed by the assessee was disallowed on the reasoning that the amount was not actually paid by the assessee in the relevant previous year. As per section 43B(f) of the Act, which was introduced to the statute by Finance Act, 2001 w.e.f. 1st April 2002, any sum payable by the assessee as an employer in lieu of any leave at the credit of his employee is allowable in the relevant previous year, wherein, such amount was actually paid. Keeping in view the aforesaid statutory provision, we direct the Assessing Officer to verify assessee's claim and allow it in the assessment year, wherein, the assessee has actually paid the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....see has raised the additional ground. We find that in assessment year 2004-05, though, the Assessing Officer disallowed the aforesaid deduction claimed by the assessee, however, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) delete the addition. Subsequently, while deciding the Revenue's appeal, the Tribunal restored the disallowance / addition made by the Assessing Officer taking note of the Explanation (i) of section 115JB which speaks of addition to the book profit of any amount in the nature of provisions made for meeting liabilities other than ascertained liabilities. Thus, as could be seen, the issue raised by the assessee did not require investigation into fresh facts and can be decided on the basis of facts already available in the records of the Department. Therefore, we admit this additional ground for adjudication. As far as the merits of the issue is concerned, the learned Authorised Representative submitted, the Tribunal did not allow assessee's claim as it was in the nature of provision. He submitted, in the impugned assessment year also, the assessee has not actually written-off the provision. He submitted, the Assessing Officer may be directed to allow assessee's claim in the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ctification application filed by the assessee remained cold shelved and while giving effect to the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) order arising out of regular assessment done under section 143(3) of the Act, for the assessment year 2010-11, the Assessing Officer vide order dated 30th September 2015, held that the tax paid of Rs. 1.60 crore can only be credited towards advance tax for the assessment year 2009-10 and not for assessment year 2010-11. Thus, as a result of such decision of the Assessing Officer in allowing credit for the tax paid of Rs. 1.60 crore in assessment year 2009-10, the assessee became liable to pay interest under section 234B and 234C of the Act for short fall in payment of advance tax. Thus, as could be seen from the aforesaid facts, the assessee's request for giving credit for the tax paid of Rs. 1.60 crore was pending before the Assessing Officer since 22nd September 2009. However, the Assessing Officer has not taken care to atleast look into the claim of the assessee. Further, even after the assessee filed a rectification application under section 154 again requesting the Assessing Officer to allow credit for tax paid of Rs. 1.60 crore in asse....