Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2014 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (1) TMI 906 - ITAT AHMEDABADAddition made u/s 40A(3) of the Act – Held that:- The disallowance u/s. 40A(3) of the Act for payments made to drivers/sub-contractors, who are agents of assessee - The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance by holding that for the relevant assessment year, which is prior to the amendment w.e.f. Assessment Year 2009-10, where aggregate of cash payment in a day exceeding Rs.20,000/- is subject matter of disallowance, position during Assessment Year 2006-07 speaks of single cash payment in a day exceeding Rs.20,000 - The assessee made payment exceeding Rs. 20,000/- otherwise than by A/c. Payee Cheques or A/c Payee Bank Draft to the drivers/sub -contractors who are nothing but agent of the assessee - In view of provisions contained in Rules 6DD(1) such payments are permissible - The decision in ITO Versus Rajesh Kr Garg [2011 (8) TMI 632 - ITAT Kolkata] followed - The assessee as well as recipient had shown cash payment less than Rs.20,000 - Then, a single day more once but single entry of payment is not exceeding Rs.20,000 - the assessee has not violated the Section 40A(3) of the IT Act – decided in favour of Assessee. Disallowance u/s 36(1)(vii) of the Act - Addition made on claim of bad debts – Business or trading loss u/s 28(1) of the Act – Held that:- The appellant allowed Shri Rajeshbhai R. Mistry to collect money from the market from the debtors regularly as claimed by the appellant but not deposited with the firm - The appellant had debited the salary in the name of Shri Rajeshbhai R. Mistry and there was a full control of the employer on employee - The appellant had not brought on record any evidence that from which party he had collected money and not deposited - the appellant had not established his case that this is a permanent loss for him as no FIR lodged against the employee to recover the money - He has recovered to the extent of Rs. 2 lacs through the purchase of immovable property from Shri Rajeshbhai R. Mistry, which was not submitted before the A.O. or CIT(A) - there is no bad debt or no business loss to the appellant – order of the CIT(A) confirmed – Decided partly in favour of Assessee.
|