TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (6) TMI 422
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....efore the CIT(A) and which has been decided vide the impugned order. Aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed the present appeal. 2. It has been informed by the assessee vide letter dated 10th April, 2024 that Piramal Finance Ltd. (PFL) had merged into erstwhile Piramal Capital & Housing Finance Ltd. w.e.f. 31.03.2018 by order of the NCLT, Mumbai dated 06th April, 2018. Thereafter, Piramal Capital & Housing Finance Ltd. had merged into Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Ltd. w.e.f. September 30, 2021, which was subsequently renamed as Piramal Capital & Housing Finance Ltd. having PAN No.AAACD1977A. The original Form No. 36 was filed in this case on 11.05.2018 by Piramal Finance Pvt. Ltd. As the said entity has finally merged with Piramal Capital & Housing Finance Ltd., a revised Form No.36 was filed by this company, which is the ultimate successor to PFL, in the course of the appeal proceeding in order to complete the technical compliance. 3. The assessee has taken following grounds of appeal: GROUND I ADDITION OF INCOME AMOUNTING TO RA 14,80,285/- 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CTT(A) erred in upholding th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....not disputed by the AO, without providing an opportunity to the assessee as required u/s 251(2) of the Act 2. He further erred in not appreciating that the expense was incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business and therefore allowable u/s 37(1) of the Act and has been so allowed in the earlier year. 3. The Appellant prays that the disallowance of 50% of the guarantee commission paid be deleted GROUND VI GRANT OF SHORT CREDIT OF TDS TO THE EXTENT OF Rs. 1,57,78.615-: 1 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred in granting TDS credit of Rs. 12,98,78,591). as against Rs. 14,56,57,208/, thereby granting a short credit to the of Rs. 1,57,78,615/- 2 The Appellant prays that the AO be directed to grant full credit of TDS as claimed by the Appellant and as also reflected in Form 26AS. GROUND VII: LEVY OF INTEREST U/S 234A OF THE ACT: 1 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the levy of interest u/s 234A of the Act amounting to Rs. 89,164/- 2 The Appellant prays that the interest u/s 234A of the Act amounting to Rs. 89,164 Ground....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... CIT-DR submitted that the assessee had merely filed a copy of the ledger account of Urbanize Developers India Pvt. Ltd as appearing in its books of account which was not confirmed by the other party. Therefore, the AO was correct in making the addition in respect of this difference as the same was not reconciled. As regarding difference in the case of Vijaya Bank, the ld. DR submitted that the direction of the ld. CIT(A) to verify the transaction was proper. 7. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and the facts of the case. There is no dispute to the fact that there was difference appearing in the accounts of the assessee vis-àvis amount of transaction as per 26AS statement in the case of Urbanize Developers India Pvt. Ltd. As per 26AS statement, the total receipt from Urbanize Developers India Pvt. Ltd. was Rs. 13,55,39,687/- on which TDS of Rs. 1,35,57,968/- was deducted. In the return of income, the assessee had claimed credit for TDS of Rs. 1,34,14,940/- only and the credit for balance TDS of Rs. 1,40,028/- was not claimed and carried forward in the return and corresponding income of Rs. 14,00,285/- was also not booked. A copy of the ledger account on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Urbanize Developers India Pvt. Ltd. as reported in Form No. 26AS, rather the difference of TDS of Rs. 1,40,028/- was carried forward in the return. Under the circumstances, the assessee was duty bound to reconcile the difference in the quantum of transaction as per 26AS and as appearing in the books of accounts. The assessee has also not filed any confirmation from Urbanize Developers India Pvt. Ltd. that ledger account appearing in its own account which was filed before the AO, was correct. The ledger account as appearing in the books of the assessee is a self-serving document and it does not explain the difference in transaction as noted in the case of Urbanize Developers India Pvt. Ltd. On the other hand, the AO has not made any enquiry from Urbanize Developers India Pvt. Ltd. on the basis of ledger account as filed by the assessee. The matter is, therefore, set aside to the file of the AO to re-examine the matter once again by making necessary enquiry from Urbanize Developers India Pvt. Ltd. The assessee may also be allowed another opportunity to reconcile the difference in respect of Urbanize Developers India Pvt. Ltd. and the AO may decide the matter after making a proper e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....upon the decision of CIT vs. Gujarat Co-op Milk Marketing Federation Ltd. 43 taxmann.com 398 (Guj.HC) in this regard. 13. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, submitted that the contribution made by the assessee to HMRI was for specific projects only and if the entire amount was not spent on those approved projects, the AO had rightly made the disallowance. He strongly supported the order of the CIT(A) in this regard. 14. We have carefully considered the facts of the case. As per provision of Section 35AC of the Act, the assessee is eligible for deduction in respect of payment made to approved institute for carrying out any eligible project or scheme. As long as this condition is satisfied, the donor is eligible to claim the deduction. The Ld. AR had contended that for wrong application of funds by the recipient institute, no disallowance can be made in the hand of the donor and he has drawn our attention to Explanation to Section 35AC(2) of the Act, which reads as under: "Explanation.-The deduction, to which the assessee is entitled in respect of any sum paid to a public sector company or a local authority or to an association or institution for carrying out the eligible ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he approved institute. Accordingly, the addition made on account of proportionate disallowance of claim u/s. 35AC of the Act is deleted. The ground is allowed. 16. Ground No.4 was only an alternate claim for deduction u/s. 80G of the Act, in case the deduction u/s. 35AC of the Act was not found eligible. In view of our decision in respect of Ground No.3, this Ground has become infructuous, hence dismissed. Ground No.5 - Disallowance of guarantee commission 17. The AO disallowed 50% of corporate guarantee commission paid to the associate concern M/s. Piramal Enterprises Ltd. who had extended guarantee for various loans taken by the assessee from HFDC Bank, Kotak Bank, Axis bank, IndusInd Bank & SBICAP Trustee Co. etc. The corporate guarantee commission was paid @ 1.5% to 1.8% per annum. The AO found that the rate of guarantee commission was excessive and, therefore, disallowed 50% of the guarantee commission paid, which has been upheld by the Ld. CIT(A). 18. The ld. AR submitted that similar guarantee commission payment was claimed in the earlier years and there was no disallowance made by the department. Further that the AO did not invoke the provision of Section 40A(2)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... TDS claim should be allowed in accordance with provision of Section 199 of the Act. The ground is allowed for statistical purpose. Ground No.7 - Levy of interest u/s.234A of the Act 22. The ld. AR submitted that the due date of filing of Income Tax Return for this year was extended by the CBDT. The assessee had paid all the taxes within the original due date of filing of return i.e. before 30th September, 2017. Under the circumstances, no interest u/s. 234A of the Act should have been charged. In this regard, reliance was placed on the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of All Gujarat Federation of Tax Consultants vs. CBDT, [2014] 50 taxmann.com 115 (Guj.HC). 23. Ld. DR, on the other hand, submitted that charging of interest u/s. 234A of the Act was mandatory. 24. We have carefully considered the submissions of the assessee. Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of All Gujarat Federation of Tax Consultants (supra) held as under: "62. Such extension needs to be granted with the qualification that the same may not result into non-charging of interest under section 234A. Simply put, while extending the period of filing of the tax return and grant....