TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (4) TMI 1687
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... "1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in allowing the claim of the assessee of Rs. 14,18,22,496/- that on booking of contracts for financing of vehicles purchase, DMA commission incurred during the year be allowed in entirety in computing total income of the assessee, and thereby overruling the A.O. who held that the assessee would be entitled only to the lower amount actually debited by in its P&L account in accordance with its accounting policy of deferring the DMA Commission incurred, in its books over the period of the contract?" 2. "Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in appreciating the fact that allowing the entire expenditure in one year may given a distorted picture of the accounts of the particular year, where the expenses can be spread over the years as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madras Industrial Corporation (225 ITR 802)?" 3. "Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in admitting the additional ground for deduction of Rs. 9,97,01,832/- towards Bad Debts when this ground ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he above amount was that according to the assessee the entire commission income of the agents is payable on sanction of the loan amount therefore the entire commission income has been incurred in that year and is allowable under section 37(1) of the Act. The assessee says that it is maintaining its books of account on mercantile basis and the practice is regularly followed by the assessee. The assessee also referred to its accounting policy where the commission paid to direct selling agents for series of loan contracts is amortized over the term of the contract in the ratio of interest earned and thereafter commission is paid on achievement of targets receivable over the period of 36 months since the most of the contracts are entered into for that duration. The Assessing Officer allowed the sum of Rs. 28,64,77,259/- and disallowed Rs. 42,82,99,7555/- and this resulting into net disallowance of Rs. 14,88,22,496/-. 05. This disallowance was contested before the learned CIT (A), who allowed the claim of the assessee based on his own decision in case of the assessee for earlier years and following the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CITI Financial ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Taparia Tools Ltd., 372 ITR 605 after considering its decision in the case of Madras Industrial Investment Corporation [1997] 225 ITR 802, has held that notwithstanding the accounting treatment followed by an assessee, expenditure incurred during the year has to be allowed in full irrespective of the action of the Assessee of amortizing it. Respectfully following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Taparia Tools Ltd., (supra), wherein proposition laid down in the case of Madras Industrial Investment Corporation have already been considered, we do not find any infirmity in the order of CIT (A) for allowing deduction of Direct Marketing Agent's commission paid to the Direct Marketing Agent. As the facts and circumstances in all the three assessment years i.e., 2007-08, 2008-09, and 2011-12 are same, following the reasoning given hereinabove, the ground taken by the Revenue is dismissed." 09. LD Dr could not show any differentiating facts and circumstances. Therefore, we do not find any reason to deviate from the above decision. Therefore, respectfully following the same, the grounds no. 1 & 2 of the appeal of the Assessing Off....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing this assessee filed revised return of income to disallow the only net amount for AY 2013-14. As per working a sum of Rs. 9,97,01,832/- of delinquency support pertaining to provision of doubtful debts, which was already taxed in AY 2012-13, the assessee claimed the same as deduction in AY 2013-14. However, for Assessment Year 2013-14, the learned Assessing Officer disallowed the above claim and therefore before the learned CIT (A) assessee has raised the above ground for AY 2012-13 for claiming the deduction of Rs. 9,97,01,832/-. The learned CIT (A) allowed the same. The learned Assessing Officer is aggrieved with the above claim allowed by the learned CIT (A) for the reason that (i) such ground was not raised before the Assessing Officer, (ii) the learned CIT (A) should not have admitted the above ground (iii) the admission of the additional evidences such as agreement with Tata Motors Limited is in violation of Rule 46A of the IT Rules and (iv) on the merit the above claim is not allowable. 011. The learned Departmental Representative reiterated of the above arguments as stated in the grounds of appeal. 012. The learned Authorized Representative supported the o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me-tax Rules. There is no dispute on this. In this fact of the case, the claim of the Assessing Officer in the ground of appeal is that by admitting the additional evidence as such as agreement with Tata Motors Limited, the learned CIT (A) has violated provisions of Rule 46A of the IT Rules. However, looking at the amount of delinquency support allowed by the learned CIT (A), we find that it is merely a simple arithmetic analysis about the computation of total income and even without looking at the agreement with Tata Motors Limited; this claim is allowed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). There was no reference to any clauses of the agreement while allowing the claim of the assessee. Thus, we do not find that ld. CIT (A) has committed any error by admitting the additional evidences raised by assessee. 015. Even on the merits, the learned Departmental Representative could not point out infirmity in the orders of the LD CIT (A) in allowing the claim, which is merely a computational exercise. Accordingly, we dismiss grounds no. 3 to 5 of the appeal and confirm order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 016. In the result, ITA No. 7550/Mum/201....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appeal of the assessee on the ground of "provision for non-performing assets" to the extent of Rs. 26,23,40,000/-, despite the fact that the details/ information called for by the assessing officer, were not produced either before the Assessing officer or before CIT(A)." 018. For this year the assessee filed return of income on 29.09.2013 at Rs. 395,64,67,960/-, which was revised on 30.03.2015 at Rs. 346,95,04,300/- and assessed u/s 143(3) of the Act at Rs. 400,51,99,550/- as per order dated 30.03.2016. 019. The Ld. Assessing Officer made the following adjustment to the returned income of the assessee. a. disallowed the provision made in the books of employees welfare in respect of Bhavishya Kalyan Yojna amounting to Rs. 49,74,000/- and provision for medicare of Rs. 25,93,000/-. b. Disallowed provision of doubtful debts of Rs. 49,94,83,557/-. c. Disallowed DMA commission as per earlier year of Rs. 94,98,849/- . d. There was also a difference of Rs. 1,91,5,842/- in dealers commission which was further disallowed. 020. Assessee preferred an appeal against the order of learned Assessing Officer bef....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ismissed the claim raised by the assessee for deduction of 13,82,41,814/- in all those respective assessment years. 022. Therefore, the Assessing Officer aggrieved with that has preferred this appeal. The assessee is also aggrieved with the above order, wherein the learned CIT (A) confirmed the disallowance of Rs. 23,71,43,556/- of the delinquency support claim. Therefore, assessee is also in appeal ITA No. 244/Mum/2019. 023. Grounds in ITA no. 244/Mum/2019 are as Under:- "Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, TMF Holdings Limited (earlier known as Tata Motors Finance Limited). (hereinafter referred to as the Appellant) respectfully prefers an appeal against the order of the Honorable Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - 3, Mumbai [CIT(A)] issued under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act') on the following ground - 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT (A) erred in upholding the disallowance of a part of the Delinquency Support claim aggregating to Rs 23,71,43,556/-. The Appellant prays that the learned Assessing Officer be directed to delete the said disallowanc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n of income the assessee has added back sum of Rs. 529,164,982/- being provision for non-performing assets and standard assets. This sum was added in the computation of the total income. In the revised return the assessee claimed two new deductions, 1 delinquency support receipts against the provision of Rs. 262,340,000/-, 2. Delinquency support receipts already offered to tax in earlier years amounting to Rs. 237,143,556/-. The delinquency support receipt of Rs. 262,340,000/- was pertaining to the assessment year 2013-14 whereas Rs. 237,143,556 was pertaining to earlier years i.e. prior to assessment year 2013-14. On analysis of not number 25 the learned and CIT-A noted that in schedule of other expenses the assessee has reduced the expenditure and therefore the income has been offered to tax to that extent. The learned and CIT has held that as the appellant becomes eligible to receive the delinquency support claim from Tata motors Ltd only at the time when the debt is actually written off, the quantum of delinquency support some which has been provided for did not accrue to the assessee and therefore it is not chargeable to tax in this year. He further noted that the actual delin....