Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2015 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (3) TMI 530 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) - payment to various truck owners towards freight charges of the trucks and had not deducted TDS u/s. 194C - Held that:- Amendment with effect from 01.06.2007 whereby an individual or HUF whose total sales exceeded the monetary limit prescribed u/s. 44AB was made liable to deduct TDS have also been included vide sub clause (K) in Section 194C (1) of the Act. As far as present case is concerned, the relevant assessment year is A.Y. 2007-08 and therefore the amendment made to Section 194C(1)(K) of the Act which has been introduced with effect from 01.06.2007 has no applicability. Similar view has been taken by the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Prasant Shah vs. ACIT [2012 (6) TMI 535 - ITAT AHMEDABAD] upheld by Hon’ble Gujarat High Court [2013 (1) TMI 592 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] - Decided in favor of assessee. Disallowance of depreciation on trucks - AO disallowed the depreciation on 5 trucks for the reason that the same were purchased in the month of March, 2007 and the Registration with the Motor Vehicle Authorities was completed in the month of April, 2007 and till the time the registration was completed, Assessee could not have been said to have put to use the trucks for the purpose of business - Held that:- A commercial vehicle like a truck can be said to be ready for us only after the body fitting has been done on the chassis of the truck and thereafter the vehicle is registered with the prescribed Motor Vehicle Authorities. Before us, ld. A.R. has not placed any material on record to demonstrate that all the trucks were ready for use in all. aspects or even had obtained temporary registration of the vehicles or used for the business of the Assessee. The reliance placed by the assessee on the decisions are distinguishable on facts and are therefore not applicable to the present case. We therefore find that A.O was justified in denying the depreciation of ₹ 10,53,800/- on the 5 trucks. With respect to Truck No. 5056 it is Assessee’s submission that it had purchased the second hand truck on 07.04.2006 and the evidence of transfer of ownership in favour of Assessee was also furnished to the A.O. On the other hand we find that that A.O while disallowing the claim of depreciation of ₹ 1,05,000/- on the aforesaid truck has noted that Assessee did not produce evidence about the ownership of the truck. In view of the contradictory submissions of the Assessee and the A.O., we are of the view that in the interest of justice one more opportunity be granted to the Assessee to demonstrate the ownership of the truck before the A.O. - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes. Addition on account of difference as per the return and TDS certificates - Held that:- It is Assessee’s submission that the difference of ₹ 11,72,036/- between the amount shown in TDS certificates and reflected in the Profit and Loss Account is on account of the mistake of the persons who had issued the TDS certificate. It was further submitted before us that Assessee would be able to reconcile the difference. Considering the aforesaid submissions of the Assessee we are of the view that Assessee be granted an opportunity to reconcile the difference before the AO. We therefore remit the issue to the file of A.O to verify the contentions of the Assessee and thereafter if the Assessee’s contention are found correct, the addition made be deleted.- Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes.
|