TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (2) TMI 1253
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r scrutiny assessment and made the following disallowances: (i) Travelling expenses Rs.4,12,026/- (ii) Commission paid to Non Resident Rs.4,43,18,315/- (iii) Disallowance u/s. 14A r.w. Rule 8D Rs. 10,84,214/- (iv) Late payment of PF & ESI Rs.55,71,595/- (v) Disallowance of Consultancy charges Rs. 2,80,900/- 3. Aggrieved against the assessment order, assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who has partially deleted and partially confirmed the additions made by the A.O. 4. Aggrieved against the appellate order, both the Assessee and Revenue are in appeal before us raising the following Grounds of Appeal: ITA No. 1740/Ahd/2024 (Assessee Appeal) 1. The Ld. CIT(A) has disallowed the amount of Rs. 7,94,113/- paid to Altoteks Tekstil. In fact the amount is in nature of discount through claimed as commission and is allowable. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not admitting additional evidence in respect of Consultancy claim. He ought to have allowed the claim of Rs.2,80,900/-. ITA No. 1916/Ahd/2024 (Revenue Appeal) 1."Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) was justified in deleting addition of Rs.4,43,18,315/- an account of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he deliberation w.r.t. these old parties is as under (i) 16 Old parties which are covered in AY 2012-13 &AY 2013-14: In the orders for AY 2010-11 to AY 2013-14 the underlying issues in terms of provisions of section 40(a)(i) have been held in favour of the appellant by the First Appellate Authority as well as the Hon'ble ITAT, Ahmedabad after detailed discussion in the respective appellate orders. Similarly, the issues relating to provisions of section 37 have also been decided in favour of the appellant for AY 2012-13 and AY 2013-14 by the First Appellate Authority as well as the Hon'ble ITAT Ahmedabad after detailed discussion in the respective appellate orders. The Hon'ble High Court has also decided the appeals for AY 2010-11 and AY 2011-12 in favour of the appellant vide judgments dated 24.09.2019 and 17.02.2020 respectively. On the other hand, in the present year while making subject disallowance the Ld. AO has not brought on record any divergent factor as compared to the earlier years and contents of remand report [supra] also indicate that the same are in the nature of reiteration of the contents of impugned order and the same does not bear any material commen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....isallowance u/s 14A as per Rule 8D. ................. The appellant submitted the copy of the Acknowledgement of the ITR filed for the year under consideration and the complete set of ITR is still awaited. Nevertheless, respectfully following the binding decisions of the Hon'ble High Court, Gujarat in the cases of the appellant as mentioned above, the Ld. AO is directed to delete the disallowance u/s 14A of Rs.10,84,214/- if the claim of the assessee that there was no exempt income during the year under consideration is found to be correct from its ITR filed for the year under consideration. Last but not the least, on the issue of whether the amendment by virtue of Finance Act, 2022 to the provisions of section 14A is prospective in nature and would be applicable for AY 2022-23 and onwards or it is retrospective in nature, the Hon'ble ITAT, Guwahati in the case of ACIT v. Williamson Financial Services Ltd. [2022] 140 taxmann.com 164 (Guwahati Trib.) has held it to be retrospective in nature. However, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the later decision in the case of PCIT (Central) v. Era Infrastructure (India) Ltd. [2022] 141 taxmann.com 289 (Delhi) has held it to be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Chartered Accountant are placed on record which were very much available before the lower authorities. However Ld. CIT(A) held that no documents are produced to substantiate the claim made by the assessee. Therefore in the Interest of Justice, we deem it fit to set aside the issue back to the file of Assessing Officer to verify the above documents and allow the same in accordance with law by providing opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Thus the Ground raised by the Assessee is partly allowed. 9. Regarding Ground No. 2 in respect of Consultancy Charges of Rs. 2,80,900/-. During the appellate proceedings, the assessee filed additional evidences, therefore Ld. CIT(A) called for a Remand Report from the Assessing Officer. In the Remand Report, the A.O. after comparison of the copy of the bill amounting to Rs.2,80,900/- in the name of IDO Design Solution is found in parity with the amount of expenditure claimed by the assessee and not disputed the same. However Ld. CIT(A) held that First Appellate Authority has no jurisdiction to entertain additional ground on an issue which is agreed by the assessee during assessment proceedings, relying upon Bombay High Court judgment in the c....