TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (7) TMI 328
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ainst the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-I, Surat dated 16.11.2010 for Assessment Years 2009-10. ITA No. 675/Ahd/2011 is the appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-I, Surat 16.11.2010 for Assessment Years 2008-09. Since these appeals involve common issues, these were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. ITA Nos. 856 & 857/Ahd/2011-Revenue's Appeal for AYs 2007-08 & 2009-10 2. The first ground raised in the appeal by the Revenue in both the years read as under:- AY 2007-08 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as facts of the case in deleting the order passed u/s 201A(1) of the I.T. Act of R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gwith the assessee. 4. At the time of hearing before us, it was pointed out by the ld. Counsel that in the case of Tirupati Organisers Pvt Ltd, the issue arose about the taxability of the head of income under which the amount received from the assessee was to be assessed. As per Revenue, it is to be assessed under the head from "house property" while as per assessee it was assessable under the head "profits and gains of business", because it was the income from the business of joint venture of processing of diamonds. The dispute reached to the High Court and the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Tirupati Organisers Pvt Ltd vide Tax Appeals No. 226 to 268 of 2013, decided the issue in favour of the assessee with the following....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Act." 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the material placed before us. The assessee made the payment to various parties in respect of annual maintenance charges. The Assessing Officer was of the opinion that it is a professional fee; therefore, tax was required to be deducted u/s 194J. While, the assessee was of the opinion that it was a contract for rendering the services and therefore, tax was required to be deducted u/s 194C. The tax was actually deducted u/s 194C. On appeal, the CIT(A) accepted assessee's contention with the following findings:- "7.5 I have considered both i.e. contentions of the A.O. in the order in question and the appellant's submissions. On going through the facts with regard to services rendered ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tax at source u/s 192. The Assessing Officer was of the opinion that the Wear-Allowance is not exempt u/s 10(14) and therefore, ought to have been included in the salary for the purpose of deduction of tax at source. On appeal, the CIT(A) sustained the order of the Assessing Officer with the following findings:- "6.4 I do not agree with the appellant's submission that office wear allowance is exempt u/s 10(14) of the Act because the provisions of Sec. 10(14) talks about 'the expenses which is granted to meet wholly, necessarily and exclusively incurred in the performance of the duties...... to the extent to which such expenses are actually incurred for that purpose.' Here in this case what has actually been incurred by the employee is not ....