TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (4) TMI 875
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the facts of the case are that the appellant company is engaged in the business of rendering car rental services. In the assessment completed u/s 143(3), the AO had disallowed the claim for lease rentals of Rs. 21,57,334/- paid by the appellant in respect of the cars used by their employees. The AO had noted that the staff welfare expenses of Rs. 2,20,37,335/- incurred by the appellant company had already been debited to the P&L A/c and in that view of the matter he held that the separate claim for deduction of lease rentals of Rs. 21,57,334/- made by the appellant in computation of income was an excessive / double claim since in AO's view such expenditure already formed part of the staff welfare expenses of Rs. 2,20,37,335/- debited in P&....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e questioned the allowability of the deduction of lease rentals but disallowed the impugned sum on the ground that it was an excessive deduction claimed by the appellant since according to him this amount formed part of the 'staff welfare expenses' and which were separately debited in the P&L A/c. I note that before the Ld. CIT(A) as well this Tribunal the appellant was unable to provide any evidence to show that the expenses debited in P&L A/c did not include this amount of lease rentals separately claimed as deduction in the computation of income. The Ld. AR appearing on behalf of the appellant therefore requested that the matter be remanded back to the AO and sufficient opportunity be allowed to the appellant to prove that the claim was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the appellant is now in appeal before us. 6. Having heard the rival submissions and having perused the material on record, I am of the considered view that based on 26AS alone no additions can be made. This can at best be a starting point for necessary verification but it cannot, on standalone basis, justify the impugned addition. I therefore consider it appropriate to remit the matter to the file of the AO strictly for the limited purpose of verifying the information. In case, he can find any independent evidence for the relevant AY 2012-13 that the appellant had actually received the impugnedinterest income, then only he can bring the same to tax. It is made clear that the onus will be on the AO ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion reports were obtained to determine the said liability; copies of which have been placed in the paper book as well. The AO without assigning any reason added back these provisions to the computation of book profit u/s 115JB. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) also confirmed the impugned additions. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the appellant is now in appeal before us. 8. Having heard the rival submissions and after perusing the material on record; it is noted that the provisions in respect of gratuity, leave encashment, ex-gratia & bonus were created on actuarial basis and had been estimated with reasonable certainty. Accordingly such provisions cannot be said to be provisions of unascertained liabilities so to add it back under clause ....