TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 242X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oth the sides and also quoted the CIT(A) to conclude that on due opportunity afforded to both the sides, the CIT(A) had approached the issue properly - the Tribunal noted that it did not find any reason to disbelieve the evidence - the entire issue is based on factual matrix - From the sufficiency of evidence, when the Tribunal has held in favour of the assessee and when no question of law much less substantial question of law has arisen – thus, there is no need for interference. Deletion u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act - Whether the Tribunal is right in deleting the addition made u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Income-tax Act on account of payment of transportation charges – Held that:- The decision in CIT v. Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizers Co. Ltd. [ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er the hon'ble Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is right in deleting the addition made under section 40(a)(ia) of the Income-tax Act on account of payment of transportation charges of Rs. 11,36,949 as the provisions in the Finance Bill, 2010, clearly states that the amendment by the Finance Act, 2010, is with effect from April 1, 2010, is proposed to take effect from April 1, 2010, and will accordingly apply in relation to the assessment year 2010-11 and subsequent years ?' 3. The factual details necessary for adjudication of the issues are as follows : 3.1 The assessee-company is engaged in the business of construction of infrastructural projects mainly the water supply projects. The principal source of income of the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tment and the learned senior advocate, Shri J. P Shah for the assessee-respondent. 5. It could be noticed from the material on record that a detailed inquiry was conducted by all the authorities, and the Assessing Officer deemed it fit to call for the information under section 133(6) of the Act in respect of nearly seventy six parties. The Assessing Officer on account of the fact that there was a report of the inspector stating that the premises had been vacant and some of the persons had never worked from their residential premises nor was it possible to recognise these persons in the vicinity, concluded that these were bogus parties. The Assessing Officer also noted that the address given was identical and they were registered from a s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has committed no error in deleting the entire addition made by the Assessing Officer. The entire issue is based on factual matrix. From the sufficiency of evidence, when the Tribunal has held in favour of the assessee and when no question of law much less substantial question of law has arisen, this issue deserves no further consideration on the merits. 7. The second question pertains to the addition made under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act by the assessee to the sub-contractors for the period from April, 2004, to February, 2005, on which TDS has been paid on May 24, 2005. This issue has already been addressed by this court in the case of CIT v. Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizers Co. Ltd. reported in [2013] 35 Taxmann.com 638 (Guj) ; [201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
