|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 261 to 280 of 695 Records
-
2012 (11) TMI 813 - ITAT CUTTACK
Commission versus Discount - TDS u/s 194H - Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) - discount on sale of SIM Cards and other BSNL products - Franchiseeship Agreement - assessee contended taht as the TDS has already been deducted, U/s. 194H, on the commission given by the BSNL. Therefore, there should not be any further TDS on the same said amount while forgoing certain percentage of the original commission by allowing discount to the sub-franchisee/retailer. - held that:- The same income cannot be taxed again in the hands of different recipients which are a matter of business conducted being the fast network availability of BSNL products was not considered by the learned CIT(A) to establish that the discount available to the second and third tier franchisees was a matter of availability of products at its maximum retail price and not because they had made income from the service provider. - Decided in favor of assessee.
Decisions in the matter of Vodafone Essar Cellular Ltd (2010 (8) TMI 691 - KERALA HIGH COURT) and Idea Cellular Ltd. (2010 (2) TMI 24 - DELHI HIGH COURT), Distinguished.
TDS u/s 194I - rent - show room and go-down - Form 15G - Mistakes in the form 15G submitted by the land lady - held that:- Mistakes in the form submitted by the land lady as provided under the Act remains a mere technical formality when the assessee cannot be subjected to disallowance of expenditure claimed as rent for its shop and godown which together were to be considered under the provisions of Section 194-I r.w.s 197A of the I.T. Act. Obviously the disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) comes after considering the collection and recovery of tax by deduction of tax at source which the assessee has satisfied for non-deduction cannot result in disallowance of expenditure for no fault of the assessee. The remedy lies elsewhere. - Decided in favor of assessee.
-
2012 (11) TMI 812 - ITAT MUMBAI
Disallowance u/s 14A – Expenditure incurred in relation to exempt income - CIT(A) has directed the AO to determine the quantum of disallowance with reference to the ratio of the total expenditure debited to P&L Account in proportion that the value of transaction in shares which has yielded exempt income bears to the value of total transaction in shares – Held that:- Matter should be go back to AO with a direction to readjudicate the issue as per the provisions of law by taking into consideration the decision in case of GODREJ AND BOYCE MFG. CO. LTD. (2010 (8) TMI 77 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT). Issue remand back to AO
Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) – Held that:- Though for A.Y 2006-07 the issue has been restored back to the file of CIT(A) but it was the request of assessee that since the issue regarding disallowance under section 14A of the Act is being restored to the file of AO this matter may also be restored back to the file of AO with similar direction. Issue remand back to AO
Capital or revenue expenditure – Disallow repairs and maintenance under various heads of accounts - aluminum patti work, net working charges, expenditure for administration department – Held that:- As concluding from the facts of the case that all these expenditure were incurred in the regular course of business, after hearing both the parties we see no justification in sustenance of such disallowance. Issue decides in favour of assessee
Bad debts u/s 36 – Bad debts includes total debts amount or only brokerage in hand of share broker – Held that:- Following the decision in case of Shri Shreyas S. Morakhia (2012 (3) TMI 103 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT) that bad debt relating to transaction of shares in the hands of share broker is allowable u/s 36(1)(vii) r.w.s. 36(2) as the same is an amount which could not be recovered by the share broker from his client as brokerage receivable from client was part of the debt which was taken into account while computing the income. Issue decides in favour of assessee
Disallowance of penalty u/s 37 – Nature of payment made to stock exchange - Whether payment made to stock exchange for violation of trading beyond exposure limit, late submission of margin certificate and delay in marking delivery of shares due to deficiency is in nature of penalty – Held that:- Following the decision in case of PRASAD & CO (2012 (2) TMI 124 - DELHI HIGH COURT) & in case of GOLDCREST CAPITAL MARKETS LTD. (2009 (1) TMI 553 - ITAT, MUMBAI) that NSE was an independent body and the bye laws made by it for the regulation of its members did not have the force of the law. Such bye-law could be, at the best be seen as private contracts entered between assessee and stock exchange and any violation, therefore, cannot be, in our opinion, equated with an offence or with an act prohibited by law, in the nature of assessee’s business, as a member of NSE payments related to switching on the terminals, switched off for not abiding by the regulations of such exchange, or for delay in settlement or furnishing of data can only be considered as incidental. Issue decides in favour of assessee
-
2012 (11) TMI 811 - ITAT MUMBAI
Disallowance in respect of VSAT charges paid to Stock Exchange – For non-deduction of TDS u/s 40(a)(ia) – AO had disallowed the claim holding that the payment made were not for use of standard equipments but also involved technical services – Held that:- Following the decision in case of KOTAK SECURITIES LTD. (2008 (8) TMI 592 - ITAT MUMBAI) holding that VSAT, and leaseline charges, were reimbursement of expenses to the stock exchanges for use of standard facilities and transaction charges were not disallowable. Delete the addition. In favour of assessee
Penalty u/s 37 - Addition on account of on account of short delivery charges, failure to raise requisite margin money, non-timely deposit of margin money paid to stock exchange – AO treat it as penalty - Held that:- Following the decision in case of Master Capital (2007 (2) TMI 241 - ITAT CHANDIGARH-A) that amount paid by the assessee, a share broker to the NSE for violation of trading beyond the exposer limit, late submission .of margin certificate and delay in making deliveries of shares due to deficiencies were deductible as a business expenditure, as the amount was paid during the course of business of the assessee’s business and there was no infraction of law. In favour of assessee
Disallowance of Bad debts u/s 36 – Bad debts in relation to the value of shares transacted by the assessee as a stock broker on behalf of his clients – AO argued that bad debt can be allowed only to the extent brokerage earned on the transactions – Held that:- Following the decision in case of Shri Shreyas S. Morakhia (2012 (3) TMI 103 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT) that the brokerage having been credited to the P&L of the assessee, it was evident that a part of the debt was taken into account in computing the income of the assessee. The fact that the liability to pay the brokerage may arise at a point in time anterior to the liability to pay the value of the shares transacted would not make any material difference to the position. Both constitute a part of the debt which arises from the very same transaction involving the sale or, as the case may be, purchase of shares. Since both form a component part of the debt, the requirements of Sec. 36(2)(i) are fulfilled where a part thereof is taken into account in computing the income of the assessee. Therefore, the assessee was entitled to deduction by way of bad debts under section 36(1)(vii) read with section 36(2) in respect of the amount which could not be recovered from its clients in respect of transactions effected by him on behalf of his clients. Issue decides in favour of assessee
Cost of acquisition of share of BSE - Corporatisation and demutualization - Assessee claim depreciation on BSE Card till A.Y. 2005-06 – Claim original cost of the Card as the cost of acquisition for the purpose of calculating LTCG and cost indexation benefit which was claimed by taking the cost in 1999-2000 – AO argued that the assessee was not entitled to claim of double deduction on the same asset under two provisions of IT Act. - CIT(A) has held that cost of acquisition of shares should be taken only at Rs.7500/- in the year 2005-06 and the other cost which is WDV of the shares as on 1/04/2005 should not be added to the cost and thus he has computed the long term capital gain at Rs. 3,86,91,391/ – Held that:- Following the decision in case of Omniscient Securities (P) Ltd. (2011 (3) TMI 896 - ITAT, MUMBAI) that while computing capital gain on such transfer the AO has calculated its cost of acquisition on the basis of the written down value and Re.1 which had paid per share at the time of issue of shares by BSE Ltd. Therefore, we hold that the AO had rightly computed the capital gain and CIT(A) has wrongly calculated the long term capital gain in the hands of assessee. Appeal in favour of assessee
-
2012 (11) TMI 810 - ITAT MUMBAI
Interest on delayed refund – Period of for which interest granted - Assessee contended that the interest of refund should be allowed from the 1st of April of the F.Y. in which TDS was deducted, i.e. from 1-4-1984 and not from the date of regular assessment order - AO granted interest u/s 244(1)A on the refund from the date of regular assessment order till the date of granting of the refund - Held that:- As the contention of the assessee is not correct, that the judgment in case of Sandvik Asia Ltd. (2006 (1) TMI 55 - SUPREME COURT), has in any manner diluted the ratio and the proposition of law laid down in case of Modi Industries Ltd.( 1995 (9) TMI 324 - SUPREME COURT). In the case of Sandvik Asia Ltd. (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court, was besieged with the issue of withholding of refund without sanction of law. Issue decides in favour of assessee
Interest on refund - Assessee contended that interest should be paid on the amount of refund delayed after the expiry of 3 months from date of ITAT’s order till the date of actual granting of refund – AO argued that the interest should have to be paid in after the expiry of three months from the date of ITAT order, till the date of passing of the order giving effect of the ITAT and further interest on balance amount of refund shall become payable from the date of issue of the refund - Held that:- As the view taken by some ITO that the date of the assessment order is to be taken as the “date of the order granting the refund” is not correct. Thus, in cases where interest is payable by the Central Government to assessee u/s 243, such interest is to be calculated upto the date of issue of the refund voucher. Therefore, assessee is entitled for interest for the amount of refund and interest withheld from the period after the expiry of 3 months from the date of order till the date of actual grant of refund voucher. Issue decides in favour of assessee.
-
2012 (11) TMI 809 - ITAT MUMBAI
Revision Order u/s 263 by DIT – DTAA between India and USA – DIT has observed that the AO has not examined the ‘Base Agreement’ and has not examined the exact nature of the services - the AO has taken a possible view that it was not in the nature of Fees for technical or fees for including services provide by assessee with reference to any technical services rendered in relation to any product or software developed – Held that:- We can safely presume on the basis of Tribunal’s findings in favour of one of the party in agreement in this case that finding and view taken by the AO in accepting the assessee’s explanation is a better possible view. Following the decision in case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. (2000 (2) TMI 10 - SUPREME COURT) that on one of the two courses permissible by law has been adopted by the AO and it has resulted in loss of the revenue and where two views are possible and the AO has taken one view with which CIT does not agree, it cannot be treated as erroneous or prejudicial to the Revenue, unless the view taken by the AO is unsustainable in law. Appeal decides in favour of assessee
-
2012 (11) TMI 808 - ITAT INDORE
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - bogus purchases - Held that:- The contention of the appellant that the AO had no definite material or information before invoking provisions of section 147 is not tenable - It is an admitted fact that the original return of the appellant was processed u/s 143(1)(a) only at ministerial staff level and no finding had been or even can be recorded, by the AO during such processing, about the genuineness of purchase constituting the reasons for issue of notice u/s 148. The AO was therefore, fully justified in invoking provisions of section 147 considering the case of ACIT v Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P Ltd.(2007 (5) TMI 197 - SUPREME COURT) mentioning that failure to take steps under section 143(3) will not render the Assessing Officer powerless to initiate reassessment proceedings even when intimation under section 143(1) - against assessee.
Estimation of profit at 6% of purchase price - Held that:- As decided in System India Castings Versus Commissioner Of Income-Tax [1996 (9) TMI 37 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT] that if the transaction of purchase was found to be sham the AO would be justified in disallowing not only the purchase price but also related transaction charges and it was held that such was a finding of fact and no question of law arose against such. Accordingly AO's action making disallowance of 6% of purchase price at Rs.14,49,190/- being justified and reasonable is hereby confirmed - against assessee.
Addition made for unexplained peak investment - set off allowed by the CIT(A) in respect of 6 % of addition of profit out of peak credit - Held that:- Addition on account of disallowance of 6 % on purchases made from Kothari Group which was allowed as set off by CIT(A) against the addition of peak investment made in respect of alternative purchases made by the assessee, it is found that the AO has disallowed 6% of total purchases made during the entire year from Kothari group, whereas addition has been made with respect to peak unexplained investment worked out as on a particular date in respect of alternative purchases made by the assessee, and not in respect of entire alternate purchases made by assessee - Under these facts and circumstances & agreeing with the contention of DR that the order of CIT(A) is not correct to the extent of allowing setting off entire 6% of profit which was added in respect of entire purchases made from Kothari Group against peak unexplained investment worked out on a particular date, therefore the order of the CIT(A) is needed to be modified and direct the AO to recompute the addition made on account of purchases up till the date of working out unexplained investment on such purchases - partly in favour of revenue.
-
2012 (11) TMI 807 - ITAT DELHI
Disallowance of 25% of the total expenses u/s 144 - CIT(A)restricted it to 5% - Held that:- The assessee did not appear before the AO nor produced the relevant books of accounts or bi lls/vouchers before the AO or even before the ld. CIT(A). There is nothing to suggest as to whether or not the assessee preferred any appeal against the findings of the CIT(A) . .
As under the scheme of s. 144 itself an assessment must be done only to the best of the officer's judgment and after taking into account all relevant materials which had been gathered , thus the proper thing for the CIT(A) to have done would have been to examine the relevant books and bills/vouchers and ascertain the relevancy and validity of the materials on the basis of which the AO added the amounts instead of deleting/reducing the additions - CIT(A) did not allow any opportunity to the AO before reducing the disallowances and concluding that completion of assessment u/s 144 was not proper. There is nothing to suggest that the CIT(A) undertook any independent enquiries or even called for any report from the AO in the light of his findings in the assessment order, even while being fully aware that assessment had been completed u/s 144 - set aside the order of the CIT(A) in order to enable him to decide the matter afresh - in favour of revenue by way of remand.
-
2012 (11) TMI 806 - ITAT NEW DELHI
TDS on payment made for hiring of buses - Section 194-C OR Section 194-I - Held that:- The expression “carriage of goods and passengers by any mode of transport” finds place only in section 194 C and not in section 194-I. There is no direction that TDS on transport contracts will be made u/s 194-I instead of u/s 194C there is even no omission of clause © of Explanation III of subsection (2) of section 194C, after the aforesaid amendment in section 194-I in Explanatory Notes (Circular No. 1/2007 dated 17.04.2007). Thus according to well established rules of interpretation, specific provisions prevail over general provisions. Section 194C contains specific provisions for deduction of tax in the cases of transport contracts whereas Sec. 1941 contains general provisions for deduction of tax from rent in respect of hiring of machineries, plants etc. Therefore deduction was rightly made u/s 194C in this case
As in this case the Transporters have not given the buses for exclusive use by the appellant the use is only for point to point transportation to students/staff to and from only for convenience sake & after the specified period of use, the buses are kept under the control of the operators and not of the appellant organization, thus it implies that the main object is transportation of passengers and not complete hiring of the particular vehicle, thus the payment made to the traveling agencies for vehicle hiring is covered by the provisions of section 194-C and not by the provision of section 194-I - in favour of assessee.
-
2012 (11) TMI 805 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- The CIT(A) has recorded that the assessee has incurred certain expenses for advertisement and publicity, which have been reimbursed by the principal company and that no part of the expenses have been claimed by the appellant in its P&L account, and therefore the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) are not applicable and no disallowance could be made while computing the income of the appellant - as revenue unable to produce any fatcs to contrary no disallowance is warranted - in favour of assessee.
Disallowance on account of foreign travel expenses as non-business purposes - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- The assessee also could not justify how the travelling by the directors would have enhanced or bought value to its own business and these expenses have any relevance to the business of the assessee and in reply to a specific question from the Bench as to the date-wise details of foreign visit by two directors of the assessee-company, the same could not be produced on behalf of the assessee. Onus is on the assessee to prove the business purpose of the expenses to claim deduction, as the same is out of its taxable income, which in this case, the assessee has failed to discharge. The assessee was expected atleast to maintain a date-wise detailed programme of the directors during their foreign traveling as letters of the two directors during the relevant period addressed to the assessee-company mentioning the places where they have visited does not inspire confidence - in favour of Revenue.
Disallowance u/s.40A(2)(b) - CIT (A) restricted the addition to Rs.2,00,000/- as against Rs.6,00,000/- - Held that:- CIT(A) after considering entire facts and circumstances of the case and qualification of the lady directors and their contribution to the assessee-company has allowed salary at Rs.2 lakhs per annum each of the lady directors and disallowance was restricted to Rs.2 lakhs - no interference in his order on this issue is called for - against Revenue.
-
2012 (11) TMI 804 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Rejection of books – AO found discrepancies in gross receipts, non-payment of term loans and interest thereon, non-availability of inwards and outward register - Held that:- As concluding from the facts of the case assessee has not maintained books of account and other relevant documents, as are required under the Act. He has admitted that no in-ward or out-ward Stock Registers have been maintained for the storage. Therefore, no correct and true profits can be ascertained in absence of stock register. In favour of revenue
Revenue on adhoc basis - 90% of net sanctioned capacity – Assessee earn income from hire charges of cold-storage - Cold Storage capacity being 3382.8 MT - AO, calculated the storage capacity of cold-storage at 67656 bags of 50kg each – Calculate revenue @ Rs. 40 per bag – Assessee contended that capacity utilization for such a plant was 34000 to 36000 bags, for which a storage rate of Rs.30/- to Rs.40/- per bag was received – Held that:- As concluding from the facts of the case it would be fair and reasonable to upheld the addition to the tune of Rs. 4,00,000/-, with a view to meet the ends of justice. Issue partly allowed in favour of assessee
-
2012 (11) TMI 803 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Condonation of delay - Delay in filing appeal with Tribunal - Assessee not file the appeal because higher of litigation expense over tax payable – Subsequently AO increase the demand by passing order u/s 154 – Assessee file an appeal before Tribunal – Held that:- Subsequently increase in demand is reasonable and sufficient cause for filing the appeal late. Delay condoned. In favour of assessee
Exemption u/s 10(10C) – VRS - Assessee received salary and pension (including exgratia) – Violation of conditions u/s 10(10C) r.w.r. 2BA – Held that:- Following the decision in case of Shri Bikram Jit Passi (2012 (11) TMI 214 - ITAT, CHANDIGARH) that if AO had any doubt about the scheme he could have enquired from the employer. Assessee cannot be penalized and tax will be levied on him on the assumption that the scheme framed by employer is not in accordance with rule 2BA. Provision of Sec. 10(10C) should be interpreted in a manner beneficial to the optee for voluntary retirement. In favour of assessee
-
2012 (11) TMI 802 - ITAT PUNE
Disallowance of salary u/s 40A(2)(b) - Reimbursements made to two sister concerns, who had deputed their employees for carrying out the work of the assessee – Held that:- As concluded from the facts of the case there is no whisper, much less any material on record, to suggest that the assessee has made payments for any consideration extraneous to the cost of the employees deputed to the assessee. It is quite apparent from the orders of the authorities below that there is no allegation to say that the assessee has paid to sister concerns anything over and above salaries due to the employees who were on assignment to the assessee company. Issue decides in favour of assessee
Disallowance of salary for non-deduction of TDS u/s 40(a)(ia) - Held that:- Sec. 40(a)(ia) does not include expenditure on salaries. AO erred in invoking Sec 40(a)(ia) to disallow the impugned payment. Issue decides in favour of assessee
Disallowance of interest – Interest expenditure in relation of giving interest free advances – Held that:- The AO has not pointed out to any instance of giving away interest free loan for non-business purpose either to relative or to sister concerns. Therefore, there cannot be any disallowance of interest u/s 36(1)(iii). Issue decides in favour of assessee
-
2012 (11) TMI 801 - ITAT PUNE
Addition on account of Unexplained cash credit u/s 68 - Assessee could not furnish the requisite confirmations from the two creditors before AO – Held that:- As the assessee had produced necessary confirmation along with pass book & ROI’s before CIT(A) and AO also submit remand report on the same. There is no material or cogent reasoning made out by the Revenue with regard to the material on the basis of which the addition has been deleted. Issue decides in favour of assessee
Addition on account of promissory notes/hundi u/s 69D – AO argued that amount has been borrowed in cash on a hundi, which were found in the course of search u/s 132 – Held that:- As the CIT(A) has concluded that promissory note in question is in the same language and form, as was considered by the Tribunal in the case of Himalaya Distributors (2008 (12) TMI 272 - ITAT PUNE-B) and, therefore, he concluded that having regard to the material in question, Sec 69D could not be invoked, since the documents found were not ‘hundis’. The assessee representative has not referred to any material which would require us to depart from the aforesaid findings. Issue decides against revenue
-
2012 (11) TMI 800 - ITAT AMRITSAR
Matter referring to TPO u/s 92CA – Opportunity to the assessee – Whether opportunity to assessee has to be given before referring matter for computation of arm's length price to the TPO – Held that:- There is no specific provisions for giving any opportunity to the assessee before reference to the TPO. It is for the AO when he considers it necessary or expedient so to do, he may refer the computation of arm's length price in relation to the said international transaction u/s 92C to the Transfer Pricing Officer. Issue decides in favour of revenue
Disallowance of foreign travel expenditure – Held that:- Since the AO has not given any reason for disallowance of such expenses. What has been done by the AO is that he made a disallowance in the computational part without assigning any reason. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, disallowance made by the AO is not justified. Issue decides in favour of assessee
-
2012 (11) TMI 799 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Disallowance of interest expenses – alleged that assesses has advanced Rs.12 lacs to M/s. Millenium and Rs.20,65,000/- to M/s. Bajaj Chemical Products. On these advances no interest has been charged. The assessee is giving interest bearing funds without charging any interest - appellant submits that the loan to M/s. Millennium was given for very short period during the year. However, the principal amount had not received within the stipulated time and accordingly it was not prudent to charge interest – Held that:- AO had calculated notional interest presuming that the loan was given on the first day of accounting year, which is not correct. As the loan was given during the year, interest even on notional basis can be calculated for the days of use only though under the facts and circumstances, the same was not required - AO has not shown any nexus between interest bearing funds and the amount advanced at a lesser rate of interest. Thus, basically the nexus itself is not established - addition deleted – In favor of assessee
Disallowance on account of payment of PF and ESIC – alleged that same were not paid within the due date provided in the relevant statute - Held that:- Amount in question has been paid before the due date of filing of return – disallowance deleted – In favor of assessee
-
2012 (11) TMI 798 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Addition on account of insurance premium paid under the “Keyman Insurance Scheme” on the life of its partner – AO observed that the assessee had claimed this amount as revenue expenditure which was not allowable since the benefit of the insurance is in the nature of capital receipt and so the expenditure would also be capital expenditure – Held that:- Premium paid for obtaining such insurance policy would be an expenditure allowable u/s 37(1) of the I.T. Act - as pet 1 Explanation to Section 10 (10D), "Keyman Insurance Policy means a Life insurance policy taken by a person on the life of another person who is or was the employee of the first mentioned person or is or was connected in any manner whatsoever with the business of first mentioned person - first mentioned person is the partnership firm while the policy has been taken on the life o! the partner who is the second mentioned person – addition deleted – In favor of assessee
Disallowance on account of sales commission – alleged that the assessee was unable to provide the proof of services rendered – Held that:- Genuineness of the commission paid stands established and the AO has nowhere given a finding that the same was excessive or unreasonable - payment made to the parties is genuine, after verification from two persons to whom commission was paid. This finding of fact was not disputed by the Revenue – in favor of assessee
Disallowance on account of salary payment – alleged that since the books of accounts were not produced having been destroyed in the floods, there was no way of verifying the genuineness of claim of salary which was mostly paid in cash – Held that:- Salary was being paid to staff and to the deliveryman and the salary was paid in cash since the staff normally did not have any Bank account - payment would be made by cash to the employees and there is no statutory requirement of salary to be paid by cheque, especially to lowly paid employees – addition deleted – in favor of assessee
-
2012 (11) TMI 797 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Penalty u/s 271(l)(c) of the IT Act - appellant submitted that it had not committed any default of concealing particulars of is income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income; the penalty with regard to concealment was not applicable as the deduction u/s. 80HHC was duly claimed in the return of income on the basis of export achieved during the year and the deduction has been claimed on the basis of the certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant, who had duly verified all the export turnover figures – As per Circular No.2/2006, in respect of addition u/s 80HHC with respect to DEPB, the AO in fact should not have imposed the penalty at all - no penalty shall be levied or interest shall be charged in respect of any fresh demand raised consequent to the enactment of Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005, on account of variation in the returned/assessed income attributable to profits on sale of DEPB credits or DFRC - matter restored back to the file of the CIT(A)
-
2012 (11) TMI 796 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Disallowance u/s 40a(ia) – alleged that the appellant should have made deduction of TDS @ 2% as against 1% deducted by the appellant from freight payments – Held that:- Payment made by it to the truck operators was in the nature of sub contract and hence was rightly subjected to TDS @ 1% - assessee was required to deduct TDS at the rate of 1% only as in assessee’s case the provisions of section 194C(2) are attracted - there is no violation of section 40a(ia) on the part of the assessee. This ground of the assessee is allowed.
Disallowance on account of amount paid towards Crossing Bhada [Secondary Freight] u/s 40a(ia) – alleged that no TDS has been deducted by the delivery agent to the trucks owners while making payment to them – Held that:- Full details/facts in respect of these two grounds are not on record - restore these issues to the file of the AO
Disallowances u/s 40a(ia) on account of non-deduction of TDS on primary freight payment – Held that:- Payments related prior to 1s t October, 2004, are covered by the first proviso to section 194C(3) as it stood prior to substitution by the Finance (No.2) Act,2004 and were not therefore liable to deduction of tax at source - there is no violation of section 40a(ia) of the Act and therefore this ground of the assessee is also allowed
-
2012 (11) TMI 795 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Valuation of closing stock – Held that:- Assessee was prevented to file the requisite details in support of its valuation of closing stock, to the AO - same were filed before the learned CIT(A) but it appears that he has also not properly appreciated the same. Since the details filed before the learned CIT(A) were such that required verification at the end of the AO, we deem it proper that the matter be restored to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication
-
2012 (11) TMI 794 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Disallowance of transportation expenses – Held that:- Assessing Officer has also allowed the claim of above expenses, but by mistake in the computation of income added the above amount - addition of Rs.2,39,802 made on the above account delete
Disallowance of telephone expenses – Held that:- Disallowance of 20% of telephone expenses made by AO on the ground that the payment was made in cash for which bills / vouchers were not available with the assessee. We, however, feel that the disallowance is on higher side and therefore, we restrict this disallowance to 10% of the expenses incurred by the assessee - appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose
............
|
