TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (6) TMI 1609
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....6EA of the IT Rules? 2) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A)/ NFAC is right in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 18,658/~ on account of Payments made to suppliers treated as bogus? 3) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A)/NFAC is right in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 4.07,13,516/- u/s 80M of the Act without appreciating the fact that from the audited accounts of the assessee it is seen that the assessee has inter corporate dividend of Rs. 4,07,73.5J6/- and credit in the P&L Account but there is no information available in the audited P&L Account and Balance Sheet that the assessee has declared any dividend and also distributed dividend as per the provisions of the Act? 4) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT (A)/ NFAC is right in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 3,41,786/ on account of unexplained expenditure u/s 69C r.w.s. 115BBE? 5) The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter and/or wiry any of the grounds of appeal before or at the. time of hearing." 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a limited company engaged in the business of ho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssued by the RBI in relation to such debts is concerned the INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "G" BENCH, I.T.A. No. 3033/Mum/2019 (A.Y. 2015-16) I.T.A. No. 2873/Mum/2019 (A.Y. 2015-16) DCIT-2(2)(1), Mumbai Vs. M/s State Bank of India (Successor to State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur) held as below: The ground No. 1 of the appeal of the assessee relates to addition of Rs. 3,86,10,180/- in respect of unrealized interest on borrower accounts classified as non-performing accounts under RBI directions. The Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that this is one of the recurring issue in the case of the assessee and it has been decided in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal for A.Y.2008-09 vide order dated 03/02/2020 in ITA No. 3644 and 4563/Mum/2016. The Ld. Departmental Representative on the other hand relied on the order of the lower authorities. 5. We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue in dispute and perused the relevant material on record. The Ld. A.O. held that since the assessee is maintaining its books of accounts on accrual basis, the income in respect of bad and doubtful debt was required to be taxed on accrual basis except for the exceptions pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e first proposition in terms of the Bombay High Court in assessee'sfavour and hence, no further submissions were made on other two propositions. We noted that this issue is squarely covered by the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of American Express Bank Ltd (supra), wherein it is held that there is no credit entry in the books of the account in respect of the interest on such NPAs, no addition can be made. Further, even the Mumbai Tribunal in the case of American Express Bank Ltd. (supra) has considered this issue and held that where the AO has not contested that the policy adopted by the assessee is not in accordance with RBI guidelines, the incidence of taxation of interest on bad and doubtful debts will be either when the same is credited to the profit and loss account for the year or in the year in which it is actually received. Mere crediting of the interest to a reserve cannot be said to be an incidence by which the said interest could be charged to tax. Hence, we delete the addition of interest income and allow this issue of assessee's appeal. 5.2 Since the issue-in-dispute before us of taxability of interest on Non-peforming a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d as bogus and added to the total income of the assessee for the previous year relevant to A.Y.2021- 22 6.1 The assessing officer has not explained the nature of payment of Rs. 18,658/- to M/s Regenersis (India) Pvt. Ltd and has made addition solely on the basis of noncompliance to 133(6) notice. The AO noted in the assessment order, that he had issued notice under section 133 (6) of the Act to the concerned party, however, he did not receive any replies. Therefore, as the assessee did not furnish the necessary evidence, the AO made the addition. Nothing contrary has been mentioned by AO in the assessment order, except that the notice u/s 133(6) has not been complied. In absence of any contrary finding about expenditure specially when the appellant has sufficient income, expenditure cannot be treated as unexplained without any reason or evidence. In view of the same the ground is allowed." 8. The Ld.DR vehemently argued and fully relied on the assessment order. 9. We heard the submission and considered the documents available on the record. The issue is agitated by the assessee before the appellate authority and as per the finding of the appellate authority, there is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e assessee for the previous year relevant to A.Y. 2021-22. [Disallowance of deduction under chapter -VIA: Rs. 4,07,13,5167-]" 11. The Ld.AR fully relied on the appeal order and has drawn our attention in para 7 & 7.1 which is reproduced as below:- "7. As regards ground relating to deduction u/s 80M is concerned, the appellant explains that Assessing Officer erred in stating that the assessee has received copy of intimation u/s 143(1). The Assessing Officer failed to appreciate that as on date of passing order, the status of processing return u/s 143(1) of the Appellant in respect of A.Y.2021-2022 on the income tax portal is showing as - Under Processing. There is no question of the Appellant receiving copy of intimation u/s 143(1) under this circumstance. 7.1 I have gone through the record available in the system and seen that there is no demand u/s 156 through processing u/s 143(1)(a) or disallowance u/s 80M through processing u/s 143(1)(a), in this background the plea taken by AO in the assessment order that It is also seen that the amount of deduction u/s 80M is disallowed u/s 143(1) of the Act by the CPC, is not correct. In view of the same the dis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tees on which TDS has been deducted u/s. 194H (Form-26AS) HIFL HOME FINANCE LIMITED (Filer TAN: MUMI07496G) 598 1521004982881 PMT-194H(P) Total payments to deductees on which TDS has been deducted u/s. 194H (Form-26AS) HIFL HOME FINANCE LIMITED (Filer TAN: MUM107496G) 712 1521004982879 PMT-194H(P) Total payments to deductees on which TDS has been deducted u/s. 194H (Form-26AS) HIFL HOME FINANCE LIMITED (Filer TAN: MUMI07496G) 816 1521004982876 PMT-194H(P) Total payments to deductees on which TDS has been deducted u/s. 194H (Form-26AS) IIFL HOME FINANCE LIMITED (Filer TAN: MUMI07496G) 866 1521004982870 PMT-194H(P) Total payments to deductees on which TDS has been deducted u/s. 194H (Form-26AS) HIFL HOME FINANCE LIMITED (Filer TAN: MUMI07496G) 1,047 1521004982878 PMT-194H(P) Total payments to deductees on which TDS has been deducted u/s. 194H (Form-26AS) HIFL HOME FINANCE LIMITED (Filer TAN: MUMI07496G) 1,326 1521004982869 PMT-194H(P) Total payments to deductees on which TDS has been deducted u/s. 194H (Form-26AS) HIFL HOME FINANCE LIMITED (Filer TAN: MUMI07496G) 1,964 1521004982874 ....