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 670 - AT - Income TaxUnaccounted cash credit - CIT(A) deleted addition - assessee voluntarily surrendered an amount of ₹ 10,00,000/- out of the credit balance of ₹ 80,27,616/- for taxation - Held that:- IT(A) has given categorical findings on merits as also on the admissibility of surrender, the Assessing Officer has raised grievance only against the latter. The issue raised before us is thus infructuous inasmuch as even if the surrender is in order but the addition was not warranted on merits, it is only elementary that merely because the assessee has, under misconception of facts or law, surrendered an income, no addition can be made in respect of the same. We have also noted that as evident from the observations of even the Assessing Officer, there were no specific reasons for making the addition of ₹ 10,00,000 save and except for the alleged surrender made by the assessee. - approve the conclusions arrived at by the learned CIT(A) - See ACIT Vs Satya Narayan Agarwal (2002 (3) TMI 207 - ITAT CALCUTTA-B) - Decided against revenue. Disallowance made u/s 40A(3) - whether covered by clauses (1) of Rule 6DD and find support by clause (f) and (h) of Rule 6DD? - CIT(A) deleted this disallowance - Held that:- As is the settled position, even a payment to kacha aaratia is to be taken as a payment to the farmer as such aaratia holds agency relationship; he does not receive payment in his own right. We have also taken note of coordinate bench decisions in the cases of Shri Renkushwara Rice Mills vs ITO (2004 (8) TMI 319 - ITAT BANGALORE-B ) and DCIT Vs Hind Industries Ltd (2008 (9) TMI 413 - ITAT DELHI-C) which support this proposition. Once the payment is treated as having been made to the farmer, Section 40A(3) will not come into play. In view of these discussions, as also bearing in mind entirety of the case, we approve conclusions arrived at by the CIT(A) and decline to interfere in the matter. - Decided against revenue. Addition made u/s 40(a)(ia) - CIT(A) deleted addition - Held that:- Once it is accepted, as has been accepted by the CBDT itself, that Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Vector Shipping Services Pvt. Ltd. (2013 (7) TMI 622 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT) has decided this issue in favour of the assessee, the rigour of disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) must stand relaxed in the area falling within the jurisdiction of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court. It cannot, therefore, be said that there for the purposes of disallowance under section 40(a)(ia), so far as the assessee before us is concerned, it is necessary that the assessee should have deducted tax at sources so far as payments made during the relevant previous year are concerned - Decided against revenue.
|