Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2015 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (9) TMI 1229 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance made under section 40A(3) - Held that:- The observations made by the Ld CIT(A) with regard to the date of entering into MOU are not material to the issue under consideration, since the sale of plots so purchased by the assessee has been accepted and the assessee is showing the same as his business income. Further, the question of disallowance u/s 40A(3) would arise only, if the purchases are accepted, i.e., with regard to the expenses with are otherwise allowable under the Act. Further, we notice that the assessing officer did not examine the recipients of the cash in order to disprove the claim of the assessee as well as the confirmation letters given by them. Hence, we are of the view that the disallowance made u/s 40A(3) of the Act is not justified. Accordingly, we set aside the order of Ld CIT(A) on this issue and direct the assessing officer to delete the impugned addition. - Decided in favour of assessee. Disallowance on purchase of land from M/s Laxman Mhatre and others - Held that:- We notice that the AO has accepted the cheque payment of ₹ 6.65 lakhs, which means that the assessing officer believes a portion of purchases and hence, in our view, he is not justified in disbelieving the remaining part. We may state here that the AO could have examined the said claim of purchases, by ascertaining the market value and accordingly proved that the payment of ₹ 22.00 lakhs made by way of cash is in excess of the prevailing market value, in which case, there could have been some justification. We notice that the AO did not make any such enquiries. In fact, as stated earlier, the AO has proceeded with the misconceived notion that there is no MOU, which was factually incorrect. It is well settled that the AO cannot be given a chance for mistake committed by him. Accordingly, we are of the view that the AO has made the disallowance of ₹ 22 lakhs on misconceived notions, without properly examining the documents. We also notice that the Ld CIT(A) has also committed error in confirming this disallowance. Accordingly, we set aside the order of Ld CIT(A) on this issue and direct the assessing officer to delete this addition.- Decided in favour of assessee. Disallowance made under section 14A of the Act - Held that:- The dividend received from mutual funds has not been claimed to be exempt, but offered to tax. The AO has worked out the disallowance by considering the investments made in mutual funds also. Since, the disputed disallowance is only about ₹ 82,000/-, considering the smallness of the amount and also considering the various submissions made, we are of the view that this issue may be put at rest by sustaining the addition to the extent of ₹ 50,000/-. Accordingly, we set aside the order of Ld CIT(A) on this issue and direct the AO to restrict the disallowance to ₹ 50,000/-. - Decided partly in favour of assessee. Adhoc Disallowance made out of expenses - Held that:- With regard to car and telephone expenses, we also agree with the view of the AO that the involvement of personal element cannot be ruled out. However, with regard to the Business promotion expenses, we are of the view that the AO should have analysed the nature of expenses before coming to such a conclusion. We notice that the Ld CIT(A) also did not examine this aspect. Accordingly, we set aside the order of Ld CIT(A) and direct the AO to make disallowance out of Car and Telephone expenses only. - Decided partly in favour of assessee.
|