AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (12) TMI 1065
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Pr.CIT u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter called as 'Act'). In this case, the assessee is an individual carrying on business in construction activity under the name and style of M/s Sun 'N' Sea Constructions, filed her return of income declaring total income at Rs. 9,26,000/- for the A.Y.2012-13 on 29.09.2012 by e-filing. The case was selected for scrutiny and the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) on total income of Rs. 12,36,750/-. In the assessment order, the Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed meshion charges on estimation at 5%. Subsequently, the Pr.CIT, Visakhapatnam has taken up the case for revision and observed that the assessee has purchased a site admeasuring 597 sq. Yards vide sale deed document No.3924/2010 in the ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e impugned assessment year of A.Y. 2012-13. Since the transaction does not belong to the year under consideration and the asset was purchased initially as capital asset, the Ld.AR argued that there is no case for revision u/s 263 of the Act. However, the Ld. Pr. CIT after considering the explanation of the assessee held that the disallowance required to be made in the year in which the subject expenditure is debited to P&L account but not in the year of payment. Since the assessee has claimed the expenditure in the year under consideration, held that the disallowance also required to be made in the same assessment year. 4. The next contention of the assessee is that the property was purchased as a capital asset initially, but not as a busi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lates to the F.Y. 2010-11. Therefore, the TDS required to be made u/s 195 in the F.Y. 2010-11 and the disallowance also attracts in the same A.Y. The assessee further submitted that the assessee had filed the return of income for A.Y. 2010-11 and declared the asset in the P&L a/c for the F.Y. 2010-11. The assessee also argued that the asset was purchased for the purpose of capital asset and declared the same as capital asset in the balance sheet. The Ld. Pr. CIT is incorrect in holding that the disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) attracts in the impugned A.Y. against the purchase of asset in the F.Y. 2010-11. Therefore, argued that there is no error in the order passed by the AO and requested to cancel the order passed u/s 263 by the Ld. Pr. CIT. 7.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....resident but not deducted the TDS as required u/s 195 of the Act. The assessee is required to deduct tax at source u/s 195 of the Act and remit to the Government account. Thus, there is a default in the case of the assessee with regard to non-deduction of tax at source and complying with the provisions of section 195 of the Act and there is no dispute. Subsequently also, the assessee has not deducted the tax at source and remitted to the account of Government of India. The assessee claimed the said payment as expenditure in the impugned A.Y., as per the P&L account under the head 'Work-in-Progress'. Though the assessee has filed the returns for the A.Y. 2010-11 and 2011-12, the assessee admitted the income on sale of flats u/s 44AD of the A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the profits and gains of the business or profession and places restrictions on the allowability of certain expenditures. Further, the proviso to section 40(a)(i) permits the AO to allow the deduction in the year in which the tax was deducted and paid to Government account. Therefore, the point of allowability of deduction u/s 40(a)(i) in respect of payments which attracts the tax deducted at source under Chapter XVIIB is on remittance of such tax to Government account, but not before the year in which it was paid/incurred. It is a fact that the assessee has not complied with the provisions of section 195 and Chapter XVIIB of the Act. Therefore, till the expenditure was remitted to Govt. of India account, the assessee would not be entitled f....