We find that the AO has made disallowance on the basis of Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, but no disallowance can be made or sustained in excess of the expenses debited in the profit & loss account.
We find that the AO has not claimed that Shri Devang Shah, CA was authorised to receive any notice on behalf of the assessee-firm or was the representative of the assessee or that any power of attorney was executed by the assessee firm in favour of the said Chartered Accountant.
In the present set of facts, we have noted that the AO had considered the impugned repair expenditure as annual rent in the hands of the assessee which was without any basis. As far as the assessee was concerned, the deduction @ 30% is like a standard deduction as prescribed u/s.24(a) of IT Act, not necessarily incurred towards repairs of the house property as held in the case of JB Patel & Co. 118 ITD 556.
That argument was not acceptable to the AO and it was held that there was no evidence in support of the contention that the expenditure had actually been incurred directly by those persons. It was held that the assessee had shown the amounts in question as loans/deposits in his books of accounts.
In the light of the above decisions, once on identical facts, a view has already been taken in favour of the assessee on this issue, therefore respectfully following that view, we hereby hold that ld.CIT(A) has rightly allowed the claim. In the result, ground raised by the Revenue is hereby dismissed.
Learned counsel for the Revenue stated that said decision of this Court was not carried in appeal on the ground that it involved tax effect lower than what is prescribed by the CBDT in circular dated 9.2.2011 permitting the Revenue to carry such appeal before the Supreme Court. Counsel for the Revenue was unable to point out any factual distinction between the two cases.
All Tax Appeals are allowed. Decisions of the Tribunal under challenge are reversed. In the earlier portion of the judgment, we had recorded that the Tribunal in all cases had proceeded only on this short basis without addressing other issues. We, therefore, place all these matters back before the Tribunal for fresh consideration of other issues, if any, regarding disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. All appeals are disposed of accordingly.
The issue pertains to penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ for short). The revenue authorities had imposed penalty on the ground that deduction under section 80HHC of the Act was wrongly claimed. The Tribunal however, deleted such penalty. The Tribunal noted that tax liability against the assessee was confirmed on the basis of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Ravindranathan Nair, 295 ITR 228. The Tribunal noted that such decision was not available when the assessee filed the return. On such basis, the Tribunal was prompted to delete the penalty.
The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee has paid interest at the rate of 15% per annum to the creditors, whereas the Revenue has allowed interest at the rate of 12% and has added back the difference of 3% interest under Section 40A(2)(b) of the Act. He submitted that the interest paid at the rate of 15% to two coparceners of the assessee-HUF could not be called excessive. The learned DR has relied on the orders of the AO and the CIT(A).
Facts in brief as emerged from the corresponding assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) of the IT Act dated 18.12.2008 were that the assesseefirm is in the business of public work construction on contract basis. It was noted by the AO that the assessee has claimed an expenditure of Rs. 59,93,911/- which according to him was in the nature of “penal expenditure”.
