AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (12) TMI 1490
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ns of sec. 199 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). 3. Brief facts of the case as noted by the AO are that the assessee is into the business of giving vehicles on rentals. The AO noted from the ITS details that there was some mismatch, therefore, the assessee was asked to reconcile the same. According to AO, the assessee could not reconcile the ITS statement vis-à-vis the books of account in terms of quantum of income, its nature of transaction in respect of parties. According to AO, as per ITS details income under the head 'commission brokerage' comes to Rs. 64,75,433/- (u/s. 194J), rent (u/s. 194-I) Rs. 4,60,850/- and professional fees for Rs. 12,77,335/-. According to AO, in the reconciliation sta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....DS on payments made to assessee and as per the payee's understanding of the fiscal statute. And it was pointed out to us by the Ld. AR that in case if the deductee fills up the quarterly TDS incorrectly, the assessee cannot be penalized and according to ld. AR the nature of the transaction between the payee and the assessee cannot be ascertained by the TDS deduction erroneously made by the payee/deductee of TDS. In order to show that the deductees in this case has erroneously made the deduction under various heads, the Ld. AR drew our attention to the TDS details from which it is seen that the assessee purportedly received Rs. 23,286/- as dividend (sec. 194); Rs. 22,61,20,789/- deduction u/s. 194C (contractees); Rs. 64,75,433/- deduction u/....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Ld. AR that the tax must have deducted inadvertently by the payee u/s. 194-I of the Act. Likewise, the case of erroneous depiction of professional income at Rs. 12,77,335/-. So far as commission income is concerned, it was brought to our notice that it comprises of service charges of Rs. 11,03,134/-, sundry income of Rs. 53,26,778/- referral commission of Rs. 7,46,495/- and miscellaneous income of Rs. 23,85,648/-. According to Ld. AR, the income offered for taxation by the assessee far exceeded the amount appearing in the ITS details. It was brought to our notice that during the assessment proceedings it was brought to the notice of the AO that the income as per the ITS details have been duly accounted for though in some cases the account....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ails of royalty calculation and identity of the party has been furnished. According to AO, the royalty pertaining to earlier year for Rs. 30,95,643/- has been debited in this year's account as is evident from the notes on account, where it was recorded that the same is not related to the current year. When AO asked for explanation from assessee it filed a submission wherefrom the AO found that royalty was paid to 'Avis' and due to revision of calculations/computation as per decision of management, the same has been raised during the year. However, according to AO, since the expenses are not related to this year, the same cannot be allowed and so he added back the same to the total income of the assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....B of the Act. 8. Brief facts of the case are that the AO had added back an amount of Rs. 46,63,357/- representing the provision for doubtful debts to book profit for the purpose of computation of deemed total income and tax liability u/s. 115JB(1) of the Act. The AO has added back an amount of Rs. 46,63,357/- representing doubtful debts for computation of total income. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who deleted the same. Aggrieved, revenue is before us. 9. We have heard rival submissions and perused the records. At the time of hearing Ld. AR fairly conceded that this issue needs to be held against the assessee. We note that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. ILPEA Paramount P. ....