TAKENAKA INDIA PVT LTD,GURGAON V. JCIT,CIRCLE-25(1), DELHI

ITA 2848/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Takenaka India Pvt. Ltd., which appealed against the order of the Addl./Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Guwahati, concerning the disallowance of business losses claimed in the return of income for the Assessment Year 2023-24. The primary issues were the disallowance of Rs. 40,44,267 claimed as bonus under section 43B of the Income Tax Act, and Rs. 1,10,13,000 concerning provisions for payment to employees. The assessee argued that these amounts were either misreported or incorrectly disallowed due to mismatches between the tax audit report and the returns filed for the previous assessment year. The Tribunal found the assessee's arguments convincing and directed a re-examination of the claims.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 789409 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-11-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 29-04-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: ANIL BHALLA
• Keywords: Revised return; Bad and doubtful debts
• Section: 43B

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.2848/Del/2025 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2023-24) Takenaka India Pvt. Ltd., Unit No.1002, 10th Floor, Vatika City Point, Mehrauli Gurgaon Road, Gurugram- 122002, Haryana. PAN-AADCT6143P Vs. Addl./JCIT(A)-2, Guwahati. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Anil Bhalla, CA Department by Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR O R D E R PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Addl./ Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Guwahati [CIT(A) in short], dated 03.03.2025 in Appeal No. ADDL/JCIT(A)-2 GUWHATI/10037/2022-23/2019 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act, in short) arising out of the order passed u/s 143(1) dated 27.05.2024 for Assessment Year 2023-24. 2. Brief facts of the case are that assessee has filed its return of income declaring total loss of Rs.2,49,88,437/- on 16.11.2023 and had claimed refund of Rs. 3,42,88,485/-. Thereafter, the assessee received notice u/s 139(9) of the Act. In response to which, the assessee filed revised return wherein same loss was declared as was declared in the original return, however claim of refund was reduced to Rs. Date of hearing 18.11.2025 Date of pronouncement 27.11.2025 Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No.2848/Del/2025 Takenaka India Pvt. Ltd. vs. JCIT 2,26,03,717/-/. The return was processed wherein process u/s 143(1) vide order dated 27.05.2024 wherein the business loss was reduced to Rs. 1,50,57,265/- by making two adjustments. First adjustments was on account of disallowance of Rs. 40,44,267/- made u/s 43B towards bonus payable and Second disallowance was on account of provisions of payment to employees of Rs.1,10,13,000/-. Against such disallowances, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal of the assessee and confirmed disallowance made by the CPC. 3. Thus, aggrieved by the said order, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking the following grounds of appeals:- “1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the action of AO CPC in disallowing the amount of Rs.40,44,267/- claimed as bonus paid under section 43B of the act in effect reducing the current year business loss by the same amount owing to the mismatch between the return of income (ROI) and tax audit report. 1.1 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the action of AO CPC by not accepting the fact that the mismatch was because the amount of Rs. 40,44,267/- was shown as allowance in tax audit report of AY 2022-23 (immediate earlier Assessment Year) as it was paid on or before filing of the ROI but was inadvertently not claimed as allowance in ROI of AY 2022-23 (immediate earlier Assessment Year). The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to take cognisance of the fact that the said amount was therefore claimed as allowance in the ROI of AY 2023-24 on payment basis. 1.2 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in its order has erred both on facts and in law by disallowing the amount of Rs. 40,44,267/- claimed as bonus paid under Section 438 of the act, by completely misunderstanding the facts of the case by claiming that the bonus payment was made in FY 2021-22 (AY 2022-23 (immediate earlier Assessment Year)], and hence as per payment basis should be claimed by the appellant in AY 2022-23 (immediate earlier Assessment Year) and not in AY 2023-24. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) though has accepted the proposition of the appellant that the amount is entitled to be claimed on payment basis under section 43B of the act but has failed to understand that the bonus amount of Rs. 40,44,267/- was actually paid in FY 2022-23 (AY 2023-24), as duly reported in Clause 26(b) of the Tax Audit Report for AY 2022-23 and not in FY 2021-22 [AY 2022-23 (immediate earlier Assessment Year)]. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the action of AO CPC in making an addition of Rs.1,10,13,000/which was Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No.2848/Del/2025 Takenaka India Pvt. Ltd. vs. JCIT claimed as deduction during the year towards reversal of the provision created for payment to the employees as the said provision was already disallowed in the ROI of AY 2022-23 (immediate earlier Assessment Year), it being an unascertained liability. 2.1 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both on facts and in law by confirming the action of AO CPC in not accepting the facts that the said provision was already offered to tax in the ROI of AY 2022-23 (immediate earlier Assessment Year) and also reported in the tax audit report under ICDS-1 as it was an unascertained liability. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to take cognisance of the fact that since the said amount was already disallowed in AY 2022-23 (immediate earlier Assessment Year), it was claimed as allowance in the ROI of AY 2023-24 on its reversal for which no disclosure was required in the Tax audit report and hence the mismatch arose. 2.2 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred, both on facts and in law, in holding that the appellant did not disallow the provision for payment to employees amounting to Rs.1,10,13,000/- for FY 2021-22 [AY 2022-23 (immediate earlier Assessment Year)], and in incorrectly concluding that only an amount of Rs.1,10,60,854/-shown as \"Provision for doubtful debts written back\" was disallowed, further alleging that the appellant wrongly claimed this disallowance as relating to the provision for employee payments. In doing so, the learned CIT(A) has misinterpreted the appellant's submissions and failed disallowance of Rs.1,10,13,000/- towards provision for to recognize payment to employees was duly made and clearly reflected in the 'Other Information' and ICDS schedules of the Return of Income for AY 2022-23 (immediate earlier Assessment Year), thereby offering the said amount to tax.” 4. Heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. At the outset, it is seen that both the issues relating to disallowance taken u/s 43B on account of bonus payable and provisions of payment to employees of Rs.1,10,13,000/-, it was claimed by the assessee that bonus was paid before due date of filing of return and it was related to the financial year ending of 31.03.2022 relevant to AY 2022-23. However, since the same was not claimed as expenses in the return filed for Ay 2022-23 thus the same was claiedm as expenses int eh year under appeal on payment basis. This amount was duly reported in the tax audit for Assessment Year 2022-23 to which bonus payable was charged to P&L A/c and offered for tax. Therefore, the CPC has disallowed the same being mismatch between return of income and tax audit report. The ld. AR submits that assessee claimed this amount as expenditure in the year under appeal though it was related to Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No.2848/Del/2025 Takenaka India Pvt. Ltd. vs. JCIT preceding year as the same was paid during the year and no deduction was claimed in preceding year, therefore, the same is allowable in the year. The arguments put forth by the assessee appears to be convincing. Accordingly, we direct the AO to verify the fact that if no expenditure was claimed on this account in Assessment Year 2022-23 on account of bonus, the same be allowed in the year under appeal on payment basis. With these directions, this issue is partly allowed for statistical purposes. 4.1 Second issue is with respect to the addition towards the provisions of Rs. 1,10,13,000/-. As per the assessee, said amount was added back to the total income and offered for tax in the return of income filed for Assessment Year 2022-23. In the year under appeal, the said provision was written back in the books and credited to the Profit & Loss account and since the same was already offered for tax, deduction was claimed in the computation of income. This being the factual aspect we direct the AO to verify the fact narrated by the assessee and if it is found that the same is offered for tax in preceding year, no further addition is required to be made in the year under appeal. With this direction this issue is partly allowed for statistical purposes. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assesse is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 27.11.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (YOGESH KUMAR U.S) (MANISH AGARWAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 27.11.2025 PK/Sr. Ps Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA No.2848/Del/2025 Takenaka India Pvt. Ltd. vs. JCIT 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI Printed from counselvise.com "