Disallowance for prior period expenses deleted by the ITAT as the tax rate was the same from one year to another year
ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
ABCAUS 3004 (2019) (06) ITAT
In this appeal, the revenue WAS aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) on account of prior period expenses.
The Tribunal noted that the Coordinate Bench in assessee’s own case had deleted the disallowance of deduction on account of prior period expenses.
The Coordinate Bench, considering the volume of transaction of the company and the fact that the taxation rate being the same from one year to another year , had opined that it does not make any difference whether the expenses are allowed in the year or in the earlier years.
The Tribunal had noted that it was not the case of the assessee that expenses were knowingly not charged to the accounts. According to the assessee, there was a time limit for finalzation of the accounts at the Head Office which could not wait for any further for receipt of the information from the branches.
The Revenue when asked could not point out as to as to whether the said order of the Tribunal was even challenged before the Hon’ble High Court or whether the Hon’ble High Court had taken any contrary view.
Under these circumstances, being the same, the Tribunal following the order in assessee’s own case, upheld the order of the CIT(A), who had deleted the addition.
Temporarily blocking public access to Telegram App under section 69A of IT Act 2000 is not disproportionate - Delhi HC…
High Court explains the meaning of term ‘enterprise’ appearing in section 80IA to means a project or an undertaking owned…
Addition deleted as assessee was only a carrier of cash and the real owner had come forward owning the cash…
Lokayukta Police not an ‘intelligence and security’ organisation and hence not exempt from disclosure of information under RTI Act 2005…
Payment of imprest whether a transfer within the meaning of section 269ST – case remanded for determination In a recent…
CA Misconduct – Appellate order quashed as final judgment was not passed by same members who heard arguments. In a…