TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (5) TMI 1972
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1 (the 'Act'). 2. The 1st ground of appeal relates to the disallowance of Rs. 20,14,932/- being the amount of premium paid for acquiring lease hold rights over a plot of land by the assessee. The Ld. counsel of the assessee has filed a declaration u/s 158A(1) of the Act stating "we forward herewith a declaration in Form No. 8 as prescribed u/s 158A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 r.w. Rule 16 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 vis-a-vis ground No. 1 raised in the captioned appeal viz. disallowance of amortization of premium paid for the leasehold land". We find that the above issue has been decided by the ITAT 'C' Bench, Mumbai in assessee's own case for AY 2004-05 (ITA No. 461 and 849/Mum/2009). The Tribunal held as under: "8. Aft....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oyalty of Rs. 3,22,71,590/- for which details were filed and loss on sale of fixed assets of Rs. 24,44,395/- which is added in computation of income, the AO disallowed on ad-hoc basis 5% of the balance amount of Rs. 15,47,02,151/- which comes to Rs. 77,35,100/-. 3.1 In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) agreed with the reasons given by the AO and confirmed the disallowance. 3.2 Before us, the Ld. counsel of the assessee submits that detailed written submissions were filed before the CIT(A) and complete details of expenses were filed before the AO/CIT(A). It is further stated that the Tribunal vide its order dated 18.12.2017 in appellant's own case for the A.Y. 2005-06 has restored the issue back to the AO for fresh adjudication. On the other h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... decide the issue accordingly keeping in view the provisions of section 37(1) of the Act. Thus the above ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. 4. The 3rd ground raised in this appeal is against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) confirming the disallowance of Rs. 92,44,636/- made by the AO u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO observed that though the appellant has made provision for expenses in the books of accounts but not deducted tax at source. The AO noted that even on provisions made in the books of accounts, the appellant is liable to deduct tax at source. Examining the reply filed by the assessee before him, the AO found that the details of provisions made of the expenses which ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessee. In the case of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. (supra), it is held that TDS provisions were not applicable for the provisions made at the year end. In appellant's own case for the A.Y. 2006-07, the Tribunal has held that "in the case under consideration, the assessee had made provisions but had not received the bills, that in the subsequent year the provisions made by it were offered for taxation. Considering these facts and following the orders of the Tribunal in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd & Industrial Development Banking Company (supra), we decide ground no 2 in favour of the assessee." An examination of the ledger accounts indicates that these are ad-hoc provisions. Being so, following the ratio laid down in above de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssions and perused the relevant materials on record. It has been categorically held in the case of Bhogilal Ramjibhai Atara (supra) by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court that "where assessee in return of income for the assessment year 2007-08 had shown certain amount by way of his debts and Assessing Officer, applying provisions of section 41(1) added back said amount in income of assessee as deemed income, since there was nothing on record to suggest that there was remission or cessation of liability that too during assessment year 2007-08, above amount could not be added back in income of assessee." In the instant case, there is nothing on record to suggest that there was remission or cessation of liability during the impugned assessment y....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... agreed with the reasons given by the AO and confirmed the above disallowance of claim of depreciation of Rs. 93,40,242/-. 6.2 Before us, the Ld. counsel of the assessee submits that there was no disallowance of depreciation in the AYs 2007-08 and 2008-09, whereas the same was disallowed from AY 2009-10 to AY 2014-15. Further, it is stated that additional evidence by way of sample copies of bills in respect of addition to fixed assets were provided, however, these were not considered by the Ld. CIT(A). On the other hand, the Ld. DR supports the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). 6.3 We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant materials on record. We are of the considered view that the additional evidence being photoco....