2025 (12) TMI 526

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t of the order passed u/s 143(1) dated 27.05.2024 for Assessment Year 2023-24. 2. Brief facts of the case are that assessee has filed its return of income declaring total loss of Rs. 2,49,88,437/- on 16.11.2023 and had claimed refund of Rs. 3,42,88,485/-. Thereafter, the assessee received notice u/s 139(9) of the Act. In response to which, the assessee filed revised return wherein same loss was declared as was declared in the original return, however claim of refund was reduced to Rs. 2,26,03,717/-. The return was processed wherein process u/s 143(1) vide order dated 27.05.2024 wherein the business loss was reduced to Rs. 1,50,57,265/- by making two adjustments. First adjustments was on account of disallowance of Rs. 40,44,267/- made u/s....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....x (Appeals) in its order has erred both on facts and in law by disallowing the amount of Rs. 40,44,267/- claimed as bonus paid under Section 438 of the act, by completely misunderstanding the facts of the case by claiming that the bonus payment was made in FY 2021-22 (AY 2022-23 (immediate earlier Assessment Year)], and hence as per payment basis should be claimed by the appellant in AY 2022-23 (immediate earlier Assessment Year) and not in AY 2023-24. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) though has accepted the proposition of the appellant that the amount is entitled to be claimed on payment basis under section 43B of the act but has failed to understand that the bonus amount of Rs. 40,44,267/- was actually paid in FY 2022-23 (AY 2023-....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s. 1,10,13,000/- for FY 2021-22 [AY 2022-23 (immediate earlier Assessment Year)], and in incorrectly concluding that only an amount of Rs. 1,10,60,854/- shown as "Provision for doubtful debts written back" was disallowed, further alleging that the appellant wrongly claimed this disallowance as relating to the provision for employee payments. In doing so, the learned CIT(A) has misinterpreted the appellant's submissions and failed disallowance of Rs. 1,10,13,000/- towards provision for to recognize payment to employees was duly made and clearly reflected in the 'Other Information' and ICDS schedules of the Return of Income for AY 2022-23 (immediate earlier Assessment Year), thereby offering the said amount to tax." 4. Heard bo....