FLEXTRONICS TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,KANCHIPURAM vs. ADIT, CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CENTRE ("CPC"), BANGALORE
What did the Tribunal hold?
The tribunal held that if the gratuity provision amount was not debited to the Profit & Loss account and not claimed as a deduction, it could not be disallowed. Regarding DDT, the tribunal directed the AO to verify the payment and grant credit, despite the technical error in mentioning the assessment year, provided the assessee substantiates the payment pertains to the impugned AY.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal for AY 2019-20 concerned the disallowance of Rs. 266.80 Lacs related to gratuity provision and the denial of credit for Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) paid. The assessee had inadvertently mentioned the wrong assessment year while paying DDT.
What were the issues?
Whether a provision for gratuity not claimed as a deduction can be disallowed, and whether credit for DDT paid can be denied due to a technical error in mentioning the assessment year.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: HON’BLE SHRI V. DURGA RAO & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM
आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2019-20 arises out of the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 03-06-2022 in the matter of an intimation dated 13-07-2020 issued by Centralized Processing Center, Bengaluru (CPC) u/s. 143(1) of the Act.
ITA No.643/Chny/2022 - 2 -
The grievance of the assessee is two-fold i.e., i) confirmation of disallowance of Rs.266.80 Lacs u/s. 40A(7) of the Act ii) Non-grant of Credit of Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) as paid by the assessee u/s. 115-O of the Act. Having heard rival submissions and after perusal of case records, the issues are adjudicated as under.
The assessee filed its return of income which was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act. An intimation was issued by CPC, Bengaluru on 13- 07-2020 u/s 143(1) making certain adjustment in the returned income. The assessee preferred further appeal before Ld. CIT(A) wherein the appeal was allowed partly. Still aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. 4. One of the impugned adjustment is disallowance of Rs.266.80 Lacs u/s. 40A(7) which represent provision for gratuity. The Tax Auditor reported disallowance of Rs.1041.99 Lacs in clause 21(e) of Tax Audit Report. This includes re-measurement loss (actuarial loss) of Rs.266.80 Lacs on defined benefit plan. However, the assessee only disallowed amount of Rs.775.19 Lacs in the computation of income. Accordingly, CPC made further disallowance of Rs.266.80 Lacs. The Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the same. The Ld. AR has raised a plea that the amount of Rs.266.80 Lacs has not been debited to the Profit & Loss Account and the same has been debited ‘below the line’ item in the Profit & Loss Account under the head ‘Other Comprehensive income for the year’. Since the same has not been claimed as deduction, no further disallowance thereof could be made.
ITA No.643/Chny/2022 - 3 - After going through financial statements of the assessee vis-à-vis computation of income, we find strength in this plea of Ld. AR. It appears that this amount has not been debited / claimed as deduction and the starting point of computation of Profit & Loss is ‘Net profit before tax and other comprehensive income’. Accordingly, we direct Ld. AO to verify the same. If this amount of Rs.266.80 Lacs has not been claimed as deduction, the same could not be disallowed any further. The assessee is directed to provide the requisite details. The corresponding grounds stand allowed for statistical purposes.
The second issue is non-grant of credit of Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) as paid by the assessee. From the fact, it emerges that the assessee declared dividend for financial year 2018-19 in Annual General Meeting held on 30-09-2019. The assessee paid applicable dividend distribution tax of Rs.4,34,409/- on 01-10-2019 vide Challan No.68676, BSR Code 0004329. However, while filing the Challan, the Assessment Year was inadvertently mentioned as Assessment Year 2020-21. Accordingly, the credit of the same was denied by CPC. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the denial against which the assessee is in further appeal before us. After considering payment Challan as placed on page no.233 of the paper-book, we find that the applicable tax has indeed been paid by the assessee. However, Assessment Year has inadvertently been mentioned as Assessment Year 2020-21 which has led to denial of credit by CPC. Since the assessee has paid the due taxes, the credit of the same could not be denied on mere technical errors. Therefore, we direct Ld. AO to verify the payment and grant the credit of the same with a direction to the assessee to substantiate the fact that the - 4 - payment pertains to impugned Assessment Year and the credit of the same has not been claimed in AY 2020-21. The corresponding ground stands allowed for statistical purposes.
The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 24th March, 2023.
More judgments on Section 40A(7)
- DCIT, Central Cricle 29, New Delhi vs M/S Panacea Biotech Limited, DelhiITA 1518/DEL/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed6 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Cargoes Technology (India) Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer (ITO) - Ward 6(2)(1)…ITA 2851/MUM/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed23 Sept 2026AY 2024-25
- DCIT, Jabalpur vs Jila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, SeoniITA 161/JAB/2024[2016-17]Status: Disposed22 Sept 2026AY 2016-17
- Budge Budge Nangi Cooperative Bank Limited… vs ITO, Ward 26(1), KolkataITA 767/KOL/2026[2017-2018]Status: Disposed3 Sept 2026AY 2017-2018
- The Andhra Pradesh State Handloom Weavers… vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 155/VIZ/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed19 Aug 2026AY 2022-23
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Capri Global Capital LTD Through Represented By Its Law Officer Mr. Varun Kaljoria vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal SecretaryMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Sri Tatiparthy Venkata Swamy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 25 Oct 2026
- Piyush Shantilal Veera vs. State Of U.P.Allahabad · 23 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Pooja Shri Traders vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - 1Madras · 23 Oct 2026
- Aashutosh vs. The State Of Madhy PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 23 Oct 2026