TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (8) TMI 1412
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of disallowance. 2. The Ld. CIT (Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeal of the appellant without giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 3. The Ld. CIT (Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeal of the appellant without appreciating the facts of the case and the legal position on the issues involved. 4. The Ld. CIT (A) erred in dismissing the appeal of the appellant without appreciating the grounds of appeal and written submissions of the appellant. Addition of Rs. 1,16,976/- towards Payment of Service Tax u/s 43B of the Act: 5. The Ld. CIT (A) erred in dismissing the appeal of the appellant on the issue of addition of Rs. 1,16,976/- towards disallowance of Service tax u/ s.43B of the Income tax Act 1961 wit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and the details and evidence furnished by the appellant. 11. The Ld. CIT (A) ought to have appreciated the fact that the provisions of Sec 40a(ia) are not applicable in respect of the payments towards interest by the appellant since the same were paid and no amounts remained payable at the end of the relevant year. 12. The Ld. CIT (A) ought to have appreciated the fact that the provisions u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act are not applicable in respect of the payments towards interest by the appellant since the same were admitted by the recipients as income in their returns of income, as held by the Hon'ble courts. 13. The Ld. CIT (A) ought to have appreciated the fact that there is no loss of revenue since the recipients of interest income....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ere utilised for the purpose of investments, the income of which is exempt from tax. 20. The Ld. CIT (A) ought to have appreciated the fact that Rule 8D of LT. Rules, 1962 cannot be applied when the assessee is maintaining regular books of accounts and got them audited by a qualified chartered accountant. 21. Without prejudice to other grounds, the CIT (A) ought to have appreciated the fact that the AO has made mistakes in application of Rule 8D of I'I' Rules while computing disallowance u/ s 14A of the Act. General: 22. Though some grounds were not taken up before the lower authorities, they Lo' are now taken before the Hon'ble' ITAT, in view of the supreme court decision in the case of NTPC Vs CIT (229 ITR 383). ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Act. In support of his contention, he placed reliance upon the following case law: i) ITA No.315/Bang/2016 in the case of Envison Enterprises Solutions P Ltd. ii) ITA No.315/Agra/2014 in the case of Shivhare Road Lines vs. ITO iii) Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Jet Lite (India) Ltd (63 taxmann.com 62) 7. The learned DR, on the other hand, submitted that when the assessee is following the mercantile system of accounting, he has to debit the expenditure to P&L A/c but cannot take it directly to the balance sheet and any such expenditure mentioned in section 43B which has not been paid during the year, has to be disallowed u/s 43B of the Act. 8. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, we find th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nded to section 40(a)(ia) according to which where an assessee is not deemed to be an assessee in default under the 1st proviso to sub-section 1 of section 201, it shall be deemed that the assessee has deducted and paid tax on such sum on the date of furnishing of such income by the recipient in the said proviso. Further, it is the case of the assessee that the recipient has offered the income to tax in his hands and therefore, the proviso to section 201(1) applies and the assessee cannot be deemed to be an assessee in default. Admittedly, the assessee has not been treated as an assessee in default u/s 201(1) of the Act and the proviso to section 201(1) has been held to be retrospectively applicable. Therefore, applying the same and follow....