JCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S BHARAT FRITZ WERNER LIMITED, BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1185/BANG/2011Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 July 2021AY 2008-093 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The High Court confirmed the ITAT's order regarding the deletion of the addition of Rs. 87,50,000. The assessee was entitled to deduction for the property tax paid as the liability was certain.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the deletion of an addition of Rs. 87,50,000 made on account of disallowance of property tax payment. The ITAT had previously dismissed the Revenue's appeal and partly allowed the assessee's appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the disallowance of property tax payment was justified when the tax was actually paid by the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 43B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE BENCHES “B”, BANGALORE

Before: Shri Chandra Poojari, AM & Shri George George K, JM

Hearing: 13.07.2021Pronounced: 13.07.2021

O R D E R

Per George George K, JM

1.

This appeal at the instance of the Revenue is directed against CIT(A)’s order dated 22.09.2011. The relevant assessment year is 2008-2009.

2.

The solitary issue that is raised is whether the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.87,50,000 made on account of disallowance of claim of payment of property tax.

3.

At the very outset, we notice that the ITAT in its consolidated order dated 21.12.2012 had disposed of the above Revenue’s appeal and the assessee’s appeal in ITA No.1123/Bang/2011. The ITAT in its consolidated order dated 21.12.2012 had dismissed the Revenue’s appeal and partly allowed the assessee’s appeal. As against the consolidated order of ITAT dated 21.12.2012, the Revenue had filed appeal u/s 260A of the I.T.Act before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka. The Hon’ble High Court vide its judgment dated 01.02.2021 in of 2013 confirmed the ITAT’s order

. M/s.Bharat Fritz Werner Limited. as regards the deletion of addition of Rs.87,50,000 (the issue raised in ITA No.1185/Bang/2011). The relevant finding of the Hon’ble High Court reads as under:-

“9. So far as last substantial question of law is concerned, from perusal of Section 43B of the Act provides that any sum payable by way of tax, duty, cess or fee shall be allowed in the year in which it is actually paid. It is not in dispute that on account of directions issued by the court, the assessee paid a sum of Rs.87,50,000/- towards property tax. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to deduction to the extent of property tax which was paid by it. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) appeal as well as the tribunal have rightly held that the liability was certain and has rightly deleted the disallowance. Reference in this connection may be made to decision of the Supreme Court in BHARAT EARTH MOVERS supra. Therefore, the fourth substantial question of law is answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee.”

4.

In view of the above finding of the Hon’ble High Court, posting of the Revenue’s appeal in ITAT’s Registry is a mistake. Hence, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. It is ordered accordingly.

5.

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.

More judgments on Section 43B

All 7,161 judgments and leading authorities on Section 43B →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →