Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2018 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (5) TMI 53 - AT - Income TaxUnexplained cash credit u/s. 68 addition - Held that:- Assessee could not controvert the findings of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The only submission by ld.AR is that the difference is on account of discounts received from suppliers. Merely on bald assertions the addition cannot be deleted. Accordingly, ground No. 1 raised in appeal by assessee is dismissed. Additional ground to reduce the amount of discount offered by assessee in subsequent assessment years from taxable income - Held that:- The addition of the discount in the assessment year under appeal would result in double taxation of the same amount. We find merit in the submissions made by ld. AR of the assessee. However, this ground requires verification of facts. Accordingly, we deem it appropriate to remit the additional ground raised by assessee in appeal to the file of Assessing Officer for verification of the facts. If the assessee has offered discounts in the subsequent assessment years, the same may be reduced from taxable income of the respective assessment years, in accordance with law. Accordingly, additional ground raised by assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) - assessee has furnished Form-15G belatedly - Held that:- We find that Pune Bench of Tribunal in the case of Smt. Anandidevi Gairola Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (2013 (9) TMI 1214 - ITAT PUNE) has allowed the claim of assessee where Form-15G were furnished beyond the time specified under the Act. Thus disallowance is directed to be deleted. Disallowance u/s. 40A(2)(b) - Held that:- The assessee is conducting its business from various places. The assessee has a shop near Kolhapur Municipal Corporation and three go-downs at Market Yard. The above said persons are helping the assessee in managing affairs of business efficiently. In so far as reasonability of expenditure is concerned, assessee stated at Bar that all the three ladies are graduate. Taking into consideration entirety of facts, we are of considered view that salary of ₹ 83,200/- p.a. for each of the ladies, appears to be reasonable. AO before making disallowance of 40% has not made any enquiries to find out the salary paid for conducting similar work. The Assessing Officer made ad-hoc disallowance and the CIT (Appeals) upheld the same in a mechanical manner. Disallowance u/s.40A(2)(b) is not warranted. Ad-hoc disallowance - Held that:- The assessee has claimed total expenditure of ₹ 1,05,552/- on account of vehicle maintenance, repairs etc. AO made ad-hoc disallowance of ₹ 15,000/- as the expenses were supported by self made vouchers and on the premise that there is an element of personal expenditure. The disallowance of lump sum amount of ₹ 15,000/- in the facts of the case appears to be reasonable and justified. We are, therefore, not inclined to interfere with the findings of AO/ CIT (Appeals). - Decided against assessee.
|