Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2016 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (5) TMI 266 - ITAT DELHIBogus purchases - Held that:- AO made addition solely on the basis of assessment order of another company M/s Nath International.AR also submitted that entire stock registers along with stock registers of M/s Nath International were also physically produced before the AO. On the basis of above stock registers it is proved that the assessee had sufficient stock of ready fabric which was sold to the assessee firm. - Decided in favour of assessee Excess claim of expenses booked for quilting job work done by one of the job worker - Held that:- CIT(A) was right in deleting the addition by holding that the assessee had fully explained the differences between the statement of account of the assessee and copy of ledger account in the books of the assessee. The ld. DR has not brought on record anything concrete to contradict the same. - Decided in favour of assessee TDS u/s 195 r.w.s 194H - non deduction of tds - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- his issue of deductibility of tax at source on export commission is squarely covered by the CBDT Circular No. 786 dated 7.2.2000 and also the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Toshoku Ltd [1980 (8) TMI 2 - SUPREME Court ] wherein held commission amounts which were earned by the non-resident assessees for services rendered outside India cannot, therefore, be deemed to be incomes which have either accrued or arisen in India, hence no TDS. Therefore, without going into the merits of the issue, we find no infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A)- Decided in favour of assessee Disallowance of car expenses - Held that:- AO had wrongly applied the provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act as each of the cash payments considered by the AO were below ₹ 20,000/- - Decided in favour of assessee Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) - payment for job work under various heads claiming them to be purchases and had not deducted TDS - Held that:- We find force in the submission of the ld. AR that if the AO had properly examined the vouchers, he would have found that they payments were actually for purchase of raw material and not for job work and subsequently he would not have proceeded to disallowed the same u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act by holding that no tax had been deducted. The ld. CIT(A) was quite justified in deleting the addition which is not sustainable as the payments were made for purchase of material and not for job work which the ld. CIT(A) has found to be supported by bills of parties placed on record and in the paper book - Decided in favour of assessee
|