TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (2) TMI 1805
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the order passed by the ACIT, Non-Corporate Circle-1, Chennai [ in short the ld AO] under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act") dated 31.03.2015 for the Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The only issue to be decided in the appeal of the revenue is as to whether the ld CITA was justified in deleting the disallowance made in respect of payment of Rs. 1,58,56,741/- made to retired partners in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The brief facts of this issue is that the assessee is a firm of chartered accountants and had filed its return of income for the Asst Year 2012-13 on 28.9.2012 declaring total income of Rs. 10,70,28,740/-. Later the assessee filed a revised return of income on 31.3.2014 declaring tota....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... before this tribunal for the Asst Year 2011-12 in ITA No. 2077/Mds/2016 and ITA No. 2079/Mds/2016 dated 25.11.2016. The ld CITA respectfully following this tribunal decision in assessee's own case for the Asst Year 2011-12 supra, deleted the addition made by the ld AO. Aggrieved, the revenue is in appeal before us on the following grounds:- 1. The order of the learned CIT(A) is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowances made in respect of payment of Rs. 1,58,56,741/- made to retired partners claimed by the assessee on account of diversion of income by over-riding title. 2.1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance without appreciating the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed 19.12.2008. Accordingly he pleaded that the latest decision of Mumbai Tribunal dated 19.12.2008 would hold the field as on date and prayed for restoration of the order of the ld AO in this regard. 5. In response to this, the ld AR submitted that the decision of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of C.C.Chokshi & Co in ITA Nos. 492 to 495/Mum/2003 dated 24.2.2006 had been approved by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court and placed the copy of the said order before us. Accordingly, he argued that the issue under consideration has been settled in favour of the assessee by the decisions of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the following cases :- a) CCIT vs C.C.Chokshi & Co. in ITA No. 209 of 2008 and 193 of 2008 dated 25.7.2008 b) ACIT Vs ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., the continuing partners cannot carry on business without making the payment to retired partners. Similarly there is no clause in the partnership agreement of the assessee which enables the continuing partners to carry on the business with majority partners consent. Hence it could be safely concluded that the decision of S.B.Billimoria is factually distinguishable. We hold that the issue under dispute is now settled by the two decisions of Hon'ble Bombay High Court supra and respectfully following the same, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld CITA in this regard. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed. 7. Now let us come to Cross Objection of the assessee. 8. The Ground No.1 raised by the assesse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the part of the assessee, in remitting the TDS belatedly to Government account. Accordingly, the ld CITA upheld the action of the ld AO. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us on the following grounds:- 1. Payment to retired partners to be allowed as deduction under section 37(1) of the Act 1.1. Without prejudice to the claim that the payment to retired partners is diversion of income by overriding title and not chargeable to tax, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that payment made to retired partners is incurred wholly for the purpose of carrying on the profession of the firm and as such the same is allowable as revenue expenditure under section 37(1) of the Act. 2. Disallowance of Interest on TDS....