Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.25 seconds)
Multiplex Capital Ltd, New Delhi vs Assessee on 2 July, 2009 cites

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West ... vs Dunlop Rubber Co. Ltd. (Now Dunlop ... on 23 February, 1982

3. In ground No.2 and 2.1, the grievance of the revenue is against deletion of addition of Rs.8,12,580/-. The Assessing Officer has discussed this issue in para 3 of the assessment order. The said amount represented payment made to SEBI during the year under consideration which is debited on paid basis. The Assessing Officer has disallowed the said sum on the ground that the said amount paid by the assessee does not relate to the year under consideration. According to the Assessing Officer, the said liability of the assessee was crystalised in earlier years and, therefore, the same cannot be allowed during the year under consideration even if it is paid in the year under consideration. Ld. CIT (A) has deleted the disallowance on the ground that even if it is held that such charges are not allowable on accrual basis, but they are allowable on payment basis u/s 43B irrespective of method of accounting followed by the assessee and, for this purpose, Ld. CIT (A) has relied upon the decision of ITAT, Mumbai, in the case of ITO vs. Suresh Chand Jain 102 TTJ 907 (Mum) in which such charges were held to be covered by the provisions of Section 43B and he also referred to the decision of Hyderabad ITAT in the case of CIT vs. GMR 4 ITA No.3885/Del/2009 CO No.356/Del/2009 Holdings Company, 6 DTR 401 (Hyd) where similar amount of SEBI turnover fee was held allowable u/s 43B. It has been made clear in the order of CIT (A) that the said amount does not contain any interest component as the entire sum paid is principal amount and for this purpose he has referred to the letter issued by National Stock Exchange dated 23rd August, 2002 and the undertaking given by the assessee company dated 24th August, 2002.
Delhi High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 12 - Full Document

Income-Tax Officer vs Gokal Chand Jagan Nath Nahar on 31 December, 1981

3. In ground No.2 and 2.1, the grievance of the revenue is against deletion of addition of Rs.8,12,580/-. The Assessing Officer has discussed this issue in para 3 of the assessment order. The said amount represented payment made to SEBI during the year under consideration which is debited on paid basis. The Assessing Officer has disallowed the said sum on the ground that the said amount paid by the assessee does not relate to the year under consideration. According to the Assessing Officer, the said liability of the assessee was crystalised in earlier years and, therefore, the same cannot be allowed during the year under consideration even if it is paid in the year under consideration. Ld. CIT (A) has deleted the disallowance on the ground that even if it is held that such charges are not allowable on accrual basis, but they are allowable on payment basis u/s 43B irrespective of method of accounting followed by the assessee and, for this purpose, Ld. CIT (A) has relied upon the decision of ITAT, Mumbai, in the case of ITO vs. Suresh Chand Jain 102 TTJ 907 (Mum) in which such charges were held to be covered by the provisions of Section 43B and he also referred to the decision of Hyderabad ITAT in the case of CIT vs. GMR 4 ITA No.3885/Del/2009 CO No.356/Del/2009 Holdings Company, 6 DTR 401 (Hyd) where similar amount of SEBI turnover fee was held allowable u/s 43B. It has been made clear in the order of CIT (A) that the said amount does not contain any interest component as the entire sum paid is principal amount and for this purpose he has referred to the letter issued by National Stock Exchange dated 23rd August, 2002 and the undertaking given by the assessee company dated 24th August, 2002.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 9 - Cited by 4 - Full Document
1