TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 892
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....26 arising out of the separate assessment orders dt. 16.03.2016 and 27.12 2016 for Asstt. Years 2013-14 and 2014-15 respectively. 2. At the time of hearing, it was admitted by both the parties that various issues are common in both appeals thus, they are heard together and adjudicated by this common order. First we take the appeal for AY 2013-14 in ITA No. 2733/Del/2026. ITA No. 2733/Del/2026 for AY 2013-14 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Co-operative Society and carried the business of banking. The return of income for the year under appeal was filed on 29.03.2013 declaring total loss of Rs. 1,29,33,056/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and in terms of the order passed u/s 143(3) dated 16.03.2016, various....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for the year under appeal, any disallowance for non-payment of the same should be made u/s 43B of the Act in this year only even though the same was offered for tax in succeeding assessment year which is not correct. Therefore, we find no error in the orders of the lower authorities in making disallowance of the same in the year under appeal. However, an income cannot be taxed twice and therefore, the AO is directed to verify whether the same was offered for tax in succeeding assessment year and if so, the same be reduced from the total income of the assessee, otherwise it would be double taxation of an income. With this directions, this ground of appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. 9. Ground of appeal No.2 of the assessee is again....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he materials available on record. On careful perusal of the facts and the documents filed before us in the shape of computation and return of income, it is observed that the amount of Provision for Income Tax debited in the profit and loss account of Rs. 16,99,000/- has already been added back by the assessee while computing the total income as per computation of income placed at PB page 2. Once the assessee has already added back the same in the total income and computed the loss accordingly, there is no occasion for the Revenue to again disallowed the same. In view of these facts, we have no hesitation in deleting the disallowance so made by the AO. Accordingly, this ground of appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed. 15. In the result....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. 52,952/- u/s 43B of the Act. 19. Heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. It is observed that the AO has made the disallowance by holding that the assessee has made excess provision of bonus whereas it was the claim of the assessee that the bonus amounting to Rs. 33,59,228/- pertaining to the year under appeal was paid on or before the due date for filing of return. The remaining amount of Rs. 18,56,561/- relate to the excess provision of bonus made in earlier years for which the disallowance have already been made in preceding years, therefore, no further disallowance should be made. While deciding the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14 in ITA No.2633/Del/2026, we have already directed the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Rs. 77 lakhs towards ex gratia bonus u/s 43B of the Act which according to the AO was not credited or paid before the due date of filing of the return. The fact shows that the assessee made provision of Rs. 77 lakhs as ex gratia payment to its employees. The payment is made as per policy of the bank on regular basis to its employees from year to year basis. The ex-gratia payment is calculated on the basis of salary of 45 days and considering it as a salary or incentives. The Id AO treated it as a 'bonus' and held that as the same is not paid before the due date of filing of the return of income it is disallowed u/s 43B of the Act. On appeal before the Id CIT(A) assessee submitted that there is a difference between the ex gratia ince....