TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (1) TMI 1012
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dition of Rs. 11,53,378/- by holding that the payment of Rs. 11,53,378/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s 40a(ia). 2. deleting the addition of Rs. 10,94,314/- made by Assessing Officer by disallowing the interest charged. 3. Rival contentions have been heard and records perused. The facts of the case in brief are that the assessee company is manufacturing synthetic detergent on job work basis for Hindustan Unilever Limited. The Assessing Officer found that the TDS deducted on payments of Rs. 14,20,678/- was deposited after the due date for depositing TDS in Govt. account. The assessee submitted before the Assessing Officer that out of the total payment of Rs. 14,20,678/- the payment amounting to Rs. 11,53,378/- was made for capital e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....244 07.02.2006 07.04.2006 43,090 2.244 07.02.2006 07.04.2006 5,278 2.244 07.02.2006 07.04.2006 2,500 2.244 07.02.2006 07.04.2006 2,500 2.244 07.02.2006 07.04.2006 1,88,068 2.244 07.02.2006 07.04.2006 43,409 2.244 07.02.2006 07.04.2006 18703 2.244 07.02.2006 07.04.2006 34734 2.244 1420648 2.244 6. The Assessing Officer has also tabulated the above details in its order in para 2. 7. The ld. Senior DR did not dispute to the factual position with regard to the actual payment of TDS. Once the TDS has been found to be paid before the last date of filing return, no disallowance is warranted u/s 40a(ia). During the course....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s 40a(ia) during the assessment year 2005-06 and subsequently, wherein it was held that in view of the decision of Hon'ble Kolkata High Court in the case of Virgin Creations amendment brought in by the Finance Act, 2010, were retrospective from 1.4.2005. In the case of Piyush C. Mehta, I.T.A.T., Mumbai Bench in I.T.A. No. 1231/Mum/2009 vide order dated 11th April, 2012, held as under :- "17. It can be seen from the above decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court that Amendment to the provisions of Sec.40a(ia) of the Act, by the Finance Act, 2010 as aforesaid was held to be retrospective from 1.4.2005. If the amendment is considered as retrospective from 1.4.2005, the effect will be that payments of TDS to the credit of the Gove....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 589(Bom). 19. In view of the above, we hold following the decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court that Amendment to the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, by the Finance Act, 2010 is retrospective from 1.4.2005. Consequently, any payment of tax deducted at source during previous years relevant to and from AY 05-06 can be made to the Government on or before the due date for filing return of income u/s.139(1) of the Act. If payments are made as aforesaid, then no disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act can be made. Admittedly in the present case the Assessee had deposited the tax deducted at source before the due date for filing return of income u/s. 139(1) of the Act and therefore the impugned disallowance deserves to be d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uction are rightly claimed as revenue expenditure and are allowable u/s 36(i)(iii). In view of the above the disallowance of Rs. 1094314/- is deleted." 9. We have considered the rival submissions and found from record that assessee had claimed Bank charges and finance charges incurred after commencement of production, as revenue expenses. These expenses are essentially incurred revenue in nature. Accordingly, there is no reason to disallow the same in terms of provisions of Section 37. Even though the ld. CIT(A) has allowed the same u/s 36(i)(iii), as per our considered view, such revenue expenditure are allowable u/s 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Furthermore, a clear finding has been recorded by CIT(A) that such expenditure was claime....