TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 462X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... High Court] - where singular payment has not exceeded Rs. 20,000/- the department was not justified in invoking the provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act by aggregating the entire payment made to a party – Decided in favour of Assessee. Disallowance of telephone expenses for personal use – Held that:- The decision in Sayaji Iron and Engineering Co. vs. CIT [2001 (7) TMI 70 - GUJARAT High Court] followed - Once any remuneration was fixed as provided in section 309 it was not possible to state that the assessee incurred the expenditure for the personal use of the directors - Even if there was any personal use by the directors that was as per the terms and conditions of service and, in so far as the assessee was concerned, it was busines ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pressed. 4. Second common ground of appeal in all the years under consideration except for change in figure reads as under:- 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 14,07,381/- u/s. 40A(3) of the Act without appreciating the facts that each payment made to truck driver for coal transport expenses did not exceed Rs. 20,000/-. The addition of Rs. 14,07,381/- should be deleted. 5. We have heard rival submissions and perused the orders of lower authorities and material on record. In the instant case the AO found that the assessee made huge payments for purchase of coal and transportation of coal though cash payment is not exceeding limit of Rs. 20,000 specified u/s. 40A(3) of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his Bench of the Tribunal in the case of N.R. Paper Board Ltd vs. ACIT in ITA No. 4371/Ahd/2007 in the assessment year 2003-04 order dated 19-10-2010 has held that where singular payment has not exceeded Rs. 20,000/- the department was not justified in invoking the provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act by aggregating the entire payment made to a party. The above decision is squarely applicable to the facts of the instant case. Ld. DR could not point out any reason for which the said decision of the Tribunal should not be followed in the instant case. We therefore following the same set aside the orders of lower authorities on this issue and delete the disallowance of Rs. 14,07,381/- in the assessment year 2000-01, Rs. 21,14,333/- in asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... FBT and there cannot be any doubt that there is no personal element in the use of telephone. 12. The Ld. AR of the assessee relined on the decisions of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Sayaji Iron and Engineering Co. vs. CIT (2002) 252 ITR 749 (Guj), Dinesh Mills Ltd vs. CIT (2004) 266 ITR 502 (Guj) and Dinesh Mills Ltd vs. CIT (2002) 254 ITR 673 (Guj) and submitted that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the above cited decisions. It was therefore prayed to set aside the orders of lower authorities and allow the ground of appeal of the assessee. 13. On the other hand Ld. DR relied on the orders of authorities below and pleaded to dismiss ground of appeal. 14. We find that Hon'ble Gujarat High Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
