TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (6) TMI 46
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l of the Revenue is being disposed of on merit. 3. In Ground No. 1, the Revenue has challenged the action of the ld. CIT(Appeals) in allowing the claim of the assessee for deduction of Rs. 1,28,04,000/- on account of liquidated damages. 4. In the Profit & Loss Account filed along with the return of income for the year under consideration, a sum of Rs. 1,28,04,000/- was debited by the assessee on account of liquidated damages. It was explained on behalf of the assessee before the Assessing Officer that this amount represented deductions made by the customers on account of late delivery of goods, etc. and since the expenses were incurred in the ordinary course of business, the same were allowable as deduction. In the absence of relevant documentary evidence filed by the assessee to support and substantiate the said explanation, the Assessing Officer disallowed the assessee's claim for deduction on account of liquidated damages. On appeal, the ld. CIT(Appeals) deleted the said disallowance made by the Assessing Officer by following his appellate orders passed in assessee's own case for A.Y. 2003-04 and 2004-05, wherein a similar claim of the assessee for liquidated damages was d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....making the payment to assessee. The 7 ITA Nos.676/Kol/2014, 1737/Kol/2016, 1882&1883/Kol/2016 Andrew Yule & Co. Ltd., AYs- 2008-09, to 2011-12 Ld. CIT(A) noted after perusal of the relevant contract entered into by the assessee that if there is a delay in delivery of the goods by the assessee, then a percentage of the consideration agreed upon by both the parties at the time of contract would be debited which is shown as liquidated damages. We note that the Ld. CIT(A) has gone through the details of the liquidated damages and noted that the amounts have been deducted from the bills and has taken note that due to the late delivery of goods, the customers have reduced the price. The Ld. CIT(A) has noted from the details submitted that the "liquidated damages" were deducted by the Tamilnadu Electricity Board and Damodar Valley Corporation. The Ld. CIT(A) also took note that the assessee was able to provide confirmation of this fact from Tamilnadu Electricity Board; and in respect of Damodar Valley Corporation the assessee was able to produce the copy of the voucher and the copy of the cheque received from the said party which depicted that the liquidated damages have been deducted. Fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ales Tax, Differential Pension, Fund Contribution etc. relating to earlier years had crystallized in the year under consideration and the same accordingly were claimed as deduction in the year under consideration. He has also submitted that a similar issue was involved in assessee's own case for A.Ys. 2008-09 to 2011-12 and the same has already been decided by the Tribunal vide its common order dated 20.03.2019 (supra) vide paragraph no. 20, which reads as under:- "20. We have heard rival submissions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. The AO has disallowed the expenses on the reason that since these expenses are not related to the relevant assessment year, he disallowed the same. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) has gone through the details of the expenses item-wise and has reproduced the details which is given in Form No. 3CD annexure - 9 which reveals that expenditure of Rs. 10,42,572/- was on account of bonus, interest on late deposit of TDS Rs. 11,40,201/-, interest on sales tax Rs. 2,34,898/-, ESI Rs. 7,65,351/-, service tax Rs. 62,441/-, Gratuity Rs. 12,88,395/-, food staff Rs. 4,46,542/-, fee Rs. 1,07,583/- etc. had accrued only in the AY 2009-10 and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to the assessee on a similar issue were challenged by the Revenue in the appeals filed before the ld. CIT(Appeals) and while disposing the said appeals, the Tribunal has restored this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for deciding the same afresh with certain directions. They have urged that a similar issue involved in the year under consideration, therefore, may also be sent back to the Assessing Officer for deciding the same afresh. The impugned order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) on this issue is accordingly set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for deciding the same afresh as per the same direction as given by the Tribunal for A.Ys. 2002-03, 2003-04 and 2004-05. Ground No. 3 of the Revenue's appeal is accordingly treated as allowed for statistical purposes. 11. In Ground No. 4, the Revenue has challenged the action of the ld. CIT(Appeals) in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 51,67,374/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of expenses incurred on maintenance of young tea bushes. 12. The deduction claimed by the assessee on account of expenses incurred on maintenance of young tea bushes was disallowed by the Assessing Officer on t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....82&1883/Kol/2016 Andrew Yule & Co. Ltd., AYs- 2008-09, to 2011-12 assessee has relied on the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court decision in the case of Tasati Tea Ltd. Vs. CIT (2003) 262 ITR 388 (Cal) wherein the Hon'ble High court has held as under: "As we understand from the expression used in Rule 8(2), it applies only in respect of replacement of useless or dead plants in an area, which is already under cultivation and not abandoned earlier. It cannot be stretched to a stage prior to the replacement of the useless or dead bushes. The maintenance of Nursery for the purpose of raising bushes to be utilized for replantation of dead or useless bushes within the plantation area does not come under Rule 8(2). It is the replantation of dead or useless bushes within the plantation area that comes within the scope and ambit of rule 8(2). This cannot be extended to a stage prior to actual replacement or replantation." 15. We note that this issue has been dealt with by the Tribunal in assessee's own case for AY 1990-91 in ITA No. 2030/Kol/1996 vide order dated 03.08.2004, wherein vide para 12 the Tribunal held as under: "12. The learned counsel for the asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of acturial valuation was disallowed by the Assessing Officer by invoking the provision of section 43B on the ground that the same was not paid. On appeal, the ld. CIT(Appeals) deleted the said disallowance made by the Assessing Officer by following his appellate order in assessee's own case for A.Y. 2004-05, wherein a similar issue was decided in favour of the assessee. 16. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material available on record. The ld. Counsel for the assessee, at the outset, has pointed out that the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) giving relief to the assessee on the similar issue for A.Y. 2004-05 has been accepted by the Department as there was no appeal filed by the Department to the Tribunal against the said order. He has also relied on the provision of clause (b) of sub-section (7) of section 40A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, whereby any provision for the purpose of payment by way of contribution towards an approved gratuity fund is allowable as deduction. As further submitted by him, section 43B thus is not applicable here and as specifically provided in Explanation below section 40A(7)- once deduction is allowed on account ....