TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 339X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o Shri Ashokbhai Ramjibhai towards interest on unsecured loan availed from them - the assessee has not raised any objection against the disallowance made u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act - CIT(A) has confirmed the addition made by the AO on the basis that the payments to the parties were made after 31/03/2005 and there is no evidence of deduction of tax prior to 31/03/2005 - after considering the totality of the facts of the case, the issue is also to be remitted back to the CIT(A) for verification of claim of the assessee that the TDS was deducted prior to 31/03/2005 and deposited in the Government account prior to due date of filing of return – Decided in favour of assessee. - I.T.A. No. 1445/Ahd/2011 - - - Dated:- 28-11-2014 - Shri Anil Chat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld.CIT(A), who after considering the submissions dismissed the appeal. Now, the assessee is further in appeal before us. 3. Ground No.1 is against non-adjudication of ground Nos.1 2 of the appeal by holding that the same are general in nature. The ld.counsel for the assessee submitted that ground No.1 was against the order of the AO being bad in law and ground No.2 was against the disallowance of the expenditure incurred during the year as no business is done by the assessee. The ld.counsel for the assessee submitted that the authorities below have not considered the submissions of the assessee and thereby caused gross miscarriage of justice. He submitted that, before the ld.CIT(A) the assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ced below:- 1) The order passed by the assessing officer u/s.143(3) of Income Tax Act is bad in law. 2) The addition made by the assessing officer to the return income (loss) by disallowing all expenses incurred during the year as no business is done is not correct and addition made on this account be deleted. 4.1. The assessee, before the ld.CIT(A), has made following submission in respect of the above grounds:- The appellant is partnership firm formed by partnership deed dated 14.07.2002. In clause (2) of Partnership Deed the nature of business to be carried by on by firm was specified. The firm is doing business of purchase of land, property rights in land, construction etc. During financial year 2004-05 (A.Y. 2005-06) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ree categories. (1) Activity of extraction of lime stone by quarrying lease area of land, it was held that the assessee commenced its business when it started the activity of extraction of lime stone. The assessee is also relying of judgment of CIT v/s. speciality paper ltd. (1982) 133 ITR 879 (Guj.). In this case, the assessee was engaged in the manufacture of specific quality of paper had acquired all the plants and machinery and substantial quantity of raw material necessary for manufacture of raw material by end of June 1966. However, the trial production which followed thereafter sought that unless a specific plant was put up, the assessee will not be able to produce that special kind of paper. The court held that the assessee c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me Tax Act. In view of the above, the claim made by the assessee under the head business and profession of ₹ 443287/- is correct and the assessee should be allowed to carried forward loss along with brought forward loss of earlier year. A.Y Rs. 2003-04 90744/- 2004-05 367703/- The appellants case of A.Y. 2007-08 was selected for scrutiny and the learned deputy commissioner of income Tax circle 2(2) of Baroda had in para (2) of assessment order on page 2 stated as under : The assessee is engaged in the business of trading in property rights of land. During the year under account and in the immediat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... restored back to the file of ld.CIT(A) for decision afresh by way of a speaking order. Needless to say that the ld.CIT(A) would grant sufficient opportunities of hearing to both the parties. Thus, ground No.1 of assessee s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. 5. Ground No.2 is against in confirming disallowance made by the AO u/s.40(a)(ia) of Income Tax Act in respect of TDS deducted in March, 2005 and paid before due date of furnishing return of income u/s.139(1) of Income Tax Act. The ld.counsel for the assessee submitted that the AO has erred in invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. He submitted that in the assessment order the AO vide para No.4.2 has observed that the assessee-firm has deducted tax on the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
