TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 875
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rd 37(1), Kolkata is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue? (c) Whether the order dated February 09, 2013 passed by the Ld. Tribunal is perverse or not? (d) Whether the observations and/or findings contained in the order of the Tribunal for the assessment year disallowance of 2010-11 expenses in relation to the to tune the of Rs. 1,80,53,232/- are arbitrary, unreasonable and perverse?" 3. We have heard both the appellant and the respondents. 4. Before we address on the issues which have been formulated in the appeal it is important to mention the facts relating to the instant case which are narrated hereinbelow. 5. On 19th March, 2013 assessment order under Section 134(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which is hereinafter referred to as "the said Act" had been passed by the Assessing Officer. It appears from the said assessment order that the assessee declared its taxable income at Rs.9,43,459/- in the return for the Assessment Year 2010-2011. The assessee is engaged in the business of producing "Motion Pictures". The case had been selected for scrutiny through the "CASS" by CBDT. After scrutiny of ledgers the Assessing Officer concluded....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....udio Hire Charges, Location Hire Charges, Equipment Hire Charges and Car Hire Charges totaling to Rs. 1,81,79,447/-. It was stated that out of the said Artists' Remuneration, Technician Remuneration and in respect of Car Hire Charges almost 50% of the amount were reimbursed expenses and as such the entire amount may not be added back. 10. It was also stated that the amount of credit given by M/s Zee News Limited was Rs. 2,81,49,856/- as appearing in 26AS of the appellant (data updated till 18.07.2013) was inclusive of Service Tax. The accounting treatment adopted by the assessee was to credit the Sale excluding of Service Tax and hence the difference. According to the appellant, the entire sale was disclosed and as such there was no undisclosed amount of sale. So prayer was made to drop the point for addition of income. 11. So far as the point of Service Tax liability is concerned, it was stated that the assessee who is the appellant before us, did not consider the Service Tax (as an expense). The amount of Service Tax was not deducted from income in arriving at taxable income. And as such the same may not be added back under Section 43(B) of the said Act. 12. Thereafter, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....been set out hereinafter. 15. Hence, the present appeal. 16. The Learned Advocate for the appellant has drawn our attention to the impugned order dated 9th February, 2023 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and argued that the Commissioner of Income Tax wrongly assumed jurisdiction under Section 263 of the said Act in revising the assessment order dated 19th March, 2013 passed under Section 143(3) of the said Act for the assessment year 2010-2011. 17. He further contended that the said assessment order dated 19th March, 2013 is not erroneous and also not prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. He further contended that the impugned order dated 9th February, 2023 is perverse. 18. Per contra, the Learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that the impugned order dated 9th February, 2023 does not suffer from any irregularity or illegality. 19. He argued that the Learned Tribunal has correctly held that the order of the Learned Commissioner dated 30th March, 2015 while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 263 of the said Act was justifiable and there was no perversity in doing that relating to issue No.1. 20. At the outset, we feel it is important ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ipment hire charges, car hire charges and location hire charges without deduction of tax at source. However, as per balance sheet TDS liability of Rs. 18,42,097/- as on 31.03.2010 was not paid during the previous year relevant to the A.Y. 2010-11. Hence, such expenses of Rs. 1,80,53,232/- is liable to disallowed as per provision of Section 40(a)(ia) of the I.T. Act. But A.O. failed to do so. ii) As per details of TDS (Form for the F.Y. 2009-10, an amount of Rs. 2,80,56,536/- was received on account of program sales while in the P/L a/c. such receipt has been disclosed to Rs. 2,55,42,234/- resulting in undisclosed receipt to the tune of Rs.25,14,302/- which is liable to be added back to the returned income. But A.O. failed to do so. iii) As per balance sheet as at 31.03.2010 Service Tax liabilities of Rs. 35,00,000/- as at 31.03.2010 was not paid till audit of accounts. Hence as per provision of Section 43B of the Act. Such sum of Rs. 35,00,000/- is not allowable and required to be added back. But A.O. failed to do so." 24. The Appellate Tribunal while deciding the first issue held though the assessee had reported TDS liability of Rs.18,32,608/- in its balance s....