TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 544
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d in law and facts of the case while passing the appellate order upholding the denial of deduction claimed by the appellant u/s. 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act). 2. The Learned CIT(A) erred in concluding that the amount of Rs. 85,92,18,054/- is unpaid merely on the basis that the same is settled by way of adjustment ignoring that the adjustment is made against the amount becoming receivable (on final assessment) out of actual payments made earlier and therefore in substance this adjustment is equivalent to actual payment. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, DELETE any of the grounds as seemed necessary on OR before the appeal is heard." 3. The assessee is a public sector undertaking engaged in the busines....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... initially the royalty was paid to the State on adhoc basis and once the royalty was determined by the Authorities of the State the excess payment made initially was adjusted against the royalty due to the States. He has referred to various Orders passed by the Mineral Superintendent determining the liability of the assessee towards the royalty payment and submitted that in all these years royalty payable to the State was shown in negative as excess royalty was already paid by the assessee to the State and therefore, it amounts to actual payment of royalty rather pre-payment of royalty and hence, the said claim of the assessee cannot be disallowed. The learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has thus, submitted that the learned CI....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ITR due date. Since the amount was paid subsequent to the date of filing of tax audit, the same was not considered by the auditor while filing the tax audit report. However, the payment was made before the due date of return of income. Further, the due date to file the tax audit report is one month prior to the due date of furnishing the return of income and in the present case the due date for filing of the tax audit report is 31.10.2024 and for filing the return of income is 30.11.2024. Accordingly, the tax audit report was filed on 31.10.2024 and return of income was filed on 27.11.2024. In the Clause 26 of the tax audit report a disallowance amounting to Rs. 4,57,60,72,841/- under section 438 is reported which is computed by considering....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt of Rs. 1,53,93,26,769/- qualifies as business expenditure, its allowability is governed by the provisions of section 43B of the Act, which permits deduction only upon actual payment on or before the due date of filing the return of income u/s. 139(1). Further, as only expenditure of Rs. 78,01,08,715/- was actually paid during the year, which is prior to the due date for filing the return of Income for AY 2024-25 i.e. 30.11.2024 the same is allowable as deduction u/s. 43B of the Act. The balance amount of Rs. 85,92,18,054/-, being unpaid and merely adjustment entry, does not qualify the conditions as specified in the provisions of section 43B of the Act and is therefore not allowable for deduction for the year under consideration. Accordi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... transfer of the liability to other persons but the assessee's claim is that it has already paid the royalty in excess to the States and when the actual liability of the royalty is determined by the Authority a negative figure is arrived showing the excess payment of royalty by the assessee and therefore, the assessee was not required to make further payment towards royalty. Since these facts were not been neither considered nor verified by the authorities below as the case of the assessee was processed by the CPC and the learned CIT(A) has also not verified the relevant record as well as the correctness of claim of assessee that the initial payment of royalty is in excess to the actual liability of the assessee as determined by the Assessm....