GIRAFEE DEVELOPERS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 9(3)(2), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4416/MUM/2016Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 July 2018AY 2011-123 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The assessee's counsel sought to withdraw the appeal. The departmental representative had no objection. The Tribunal granted permission to withdraw the appeal.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order concerning the assessment year 2011-12. The appeal involved grounds related to the disallowance of provision for property tax and professional fees.

What were the issues?

The appeal raised issues concerning the disallowance of provision for property tax and professional fees due to non-deduction of TDS, with the assessee arguing the latter was capitalized.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 43B,Section 40(a)(ia)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “G” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM & SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM

For Appellant: Shri Viral Doshi, Shri S. K. Saikia
For Respondent: Shri S. K. Saikia

सुनवाई क� तार�ख / : 05.06.2018 Date of Hearing घोषणा क� तार�ख / : 02.07.2018 Date of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: This appeal by the assessee is directed against order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 16, Mumbai dated 31.03.2016, pertaining to the assessment year 2011-12.

2.

The grounds of appeal read as under: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT (A) - 16 has erred in confirming disallowance of Provision for Property tax amounting to Giraffe Developers Pvt. Ltd. Rs.22,13,733/- (out of total provision for property tax of Rs.1,46,11,472/-) made by the LAO u/s 43B of the Act.

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT (A) - 16 has erred in confirming disallowance of professional fees expense of Rs.27,57,500/- (out of total disallowance of Rs.4,15,83,100/-) made by LAO u/s 40 (a) (ia) of the Act due to non-payment of TDS. Appellant pleads that the said expense is not claimed as an expense, in the current year, in the Profit and Loss Account in the first place. The said expense has only been routed through the Profit and Loss Account but ultimately has been debited to the Work in Progress Account. The same being capitalized and forming part of closing stock (Work in progress) for the appellant, the impact on the profit and loss account is revenue neutral. Considering the above, the addition of the expense is unfair, arbitrary and excessive.

3.

That the appellant reserves its rights to amend, alter or raise any other additional grounds of appeal

before or during the course of appellate proceedings.

3. At the outset, in this case the learned counsel of the assessee submitted that he shall be withdrawing the appeal.

4.

The Learned departmental representative did not have any objection to this proposition.

5.

Upon careful consideration we have granted permission to withdraw the appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.

More judgments on Section 43B

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →