Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2015 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (2) TMI 162 - AT - Income TaxG.P. addition - CIT(A) directing to calculate G. P. @29% on estimated sale of ₹ 3,75 crores instead of 32% on sales of ₹ 5 crores - Held that:- CIT(A) had thus estimated the sales to be at ₹ 3.75 Crores as against sales of ₹ 3.50 Crores disclosed by the assessee which considering the totality of the facts appears to be reasonable and we, therefore, feel no reason to interfere with the order of the learned CIT(A) in estimating the sales at ₹ 3.75 Crores. As far as estimation of gross profit is concerned, ITAT estimated the gross profit at 30% for all the assessment years from 2001-02 to 2004-05. The learned CIT(A) after considering the factual position of the closure of Food Court for two months and due to increase in wages and salaries had considered the gross profit rate at 29% as against 26.21% worked out by the AO. We, therefore, feel no reason to interfere with his order as the learned DR could not controvert the findings of the learned CIT(A). - Decided against revenue. Disallowance on depreciation on vehicle - CIT(A) allowed the claim - Held that:- CIT(A) following the decisions of his predecessors in the assessee’s own case for earlier years 2004-05 to 2005-06 deleted the addition. As the assessee company had made payment for the vehicles and it is also reflected in the books of the company. Further, the vehicles were used for the purpose of the business of the assessee company, no reason to interfere with the order of the learned CIT(A).- Decided against revenue. Disallowance made u/s 40(a)(ia) - Non deduction of tds before making the payment for packing materials - Held that:- The purchases on account of plastic trays, cups, spoons and plastic dishes etc. which did not carry the logo of the assessee and were in the nature of purchases. The purchases were of standardized material available in market. These submissions of the assessee could not be controverted by the Revenue by bringing any material evidence on record. We are, therefore, of the view that the purchases made by the assessee from the aforesaid three parties cannot be considered as being a case of contract which would require deduction of TDS u/s 194C of the Act and, therefore, no disallowance u/s 40(a) (ia) of the Act is called for. We, therefore, direct the AO to delete the addition made on this count. - Decided in fvaour of assessee.
|