TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (12) TMI 1839
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssing the order and confirming the additions made by Addl. CIT 6(1) of Rs. 9,047/- on account of interest on TDS. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as in law, the learned CIT-(A) has erred in passing the order and confirming the additions made by Addl. CIT 6(1) in regard to non deduction of TDS on Interest paid to various NBFC of Rs. 3,80,622/-. The learned CIT (A) while passing his order, did not consider the plea made by your appellate and passed the order upholding the disallowance. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as in law, the learned CIT-(A) has erred in passing the order and confirming the additions made by AddI. CIT 6(1) in regard to non deduction of TDS on Commission charges paid to M/s. Ganpati Hegde & Company of Rs. 1,57,222/-. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as in law, the learned CIT-(A) has erred in passing the order and confirming the additions made by Addl. CIT 6(1) in regard to non deduction of IDS on AMC Contract Charges paid to M/s. KLG System Pvt. Ltd of Rs. 1,02,500/-. Your appellate did not know the bifurcation amongst the service portion and material portion, hence TDS ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that the amount received from the assessee has been included by the said company in the income tax return filed with the department and tax due thereon has been paid. It was further submitted that most of the payees are large companies which are properly identified and duly assessed with the income tax department, but since these are not in control of the assessee, therefore, assessee is not able to bring complete information on record in support of his claim. It was further submitted that the AO has ample powers under the law, and therefore, this issue should be sent back to the file of AO. The assessee shall extend complete cooperation and AO can bring this information on record using powers as conferred upon him under the law. 4.2. On the other hand, Ld. DR has supported the orders of the lower authorities. But he was fair enough to place his no objection for verification of these facts. 4.3. We have gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. There is no dispute that section 40(a)(ia) is leading to the disallowances on the basis of a deeming fiction, thereby causing great hardships to various tax payers even in some genuine cases. Under such circumstances, in our v....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....evised return, however, the AO did not grant said claim. It is further noted that the AO did not deal this issue in the assessment order in speaking manner. 5.2. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and reiterated its submissions, however Ld. CIT(A) was not satisfied, and relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd. 284 ITR 323 (supra) the claim of the assessee was rejected, and AO's order was upheld on this issue. 5.3. Being aggrieved, the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 5.4. During the course of hearing before us Ld. DR has placed reliance upon the orders of the lower authorities. Ld. Counsel on the other hand, stated that legitimate claim of the assessee has been denied to it. It was further submitted by him that Ld. CIT(A) has allowed similar claim which was made in the similar manner by the assessee on account of payment of PF and ESIC, and therefore, contradictory approach has been followed by Ld. CIT(A) while rejecting the legitimate claim of the assessee. 5.5. We have gone through the orders of the lower authorities and copies of judgments placed before us for our consideration. Bef....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ny such power. Thus, the decision of ITAT was upheld because the Tribunal's power was only to entertain for the first time a point of law provided the fact on the basis of which the issue of law can be raised before the Tribunal was already on record. It can be seen that the facts in the case of Goetze India Ltd were totally different than the facts in the case of the appellant where the question is grant of the claim of deduction in respect of employees' contribution to PF and ESIC, the details of which are already on the file of the AO. Hence the decision in the case of Goetze India Ltd will not apply to the case of the appellant. 8.14 In view of above discussion therefore, I have no alternative than to allow the claim of the appellant towards deduction of Rs. 14,32,481/-, being employees' contribution to PF and ESIC which has been paid by the appellant before the due date of filing of return of income." 5.6. It is thus noted that it has been held by Ld. CIT(A), after discussing the entire material and position of law, that legitimate claim of the assessee could not have been denied. He has also dealt with the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze....