GST Helpdesk   Subscription   Demo   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (11) TMI 573 - ITAT MUMBAI

2015 (11) TMI 573 - ITAT MUMBAI - [2015] 42 ITR (Trib) 357 (ITAT [Mum]) - Disallowance made out of salary and wages - Held that:- Considering the characteristics of contract works, we find some merit in the contentions of the learned authorised representative. Hence the disallowance of entire amount, in our view, is not justified. However, as pointed out by the Assessing Officer, there appears to be some deficiencies in the maintenance of vouchers, for example, the vouchers contain only the name .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

issue and direct the Assessing Officer to restrict the disallowance out of salary and wages expenditures to Rs. one lakh. - Decided in favour of assessee in part

Disallowance of value added tax payable amount made under section 43B - Held that:- The assessee had claimed input credit of ₹ 5,67,185, whereas the value added tax auditor determined that the input credit was available to the assessee only to the extent of ₹ 3,68,505. Further, there was difference with regard to .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

value added tax audit report was not accepted by the Sales Tax Department. Under these set of facts, we are of the view that the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was justified in confirming the addition of balance amount of ₹ 98,689 by invoking the provisions of section 43B of the Act. - Decided in favour of revenue

Addition of capital introduced by the assessee - Held that:- Since the assessee has filed returns of income in the earlier years by computing income unde .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

SKARAN (Accountant Member) and SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member) K. Gopal for the appellant. Love Kumar for the respondent. ORDER The order of the Bench was delivered by 1. B. R. Baskaran (Accountant Member).-The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated December 29, 2010 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-26, Mumbai and it relates to the assessment year 2007-08. 2. The assessee is aggrieved by the decision of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (App .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

imed a sum of ₹ 11,01,560 as expenditure towards salary and wages. The Assessing Officer noticed that a sum of ₹ 9,14,060 has been paid to temporary workers by way of cash. Since the vouchers produced by the assessee were found deficient of certain aspects, the Assessing Officer disallowed the entire amount of ₹ 9,14,060. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) also confirmed the same. 4. Before us, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee could not .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ers and hence the authenticity of the wages payment becomes questionable. 6. The admitted fact is that the assessee is in the business of undertaking civil contract works and decoration works. It is a common knowledge of everybody that both kinds of work involve huge labour expenditure. The assessee has claimed labour expenses of ₹ 11.01 lakhs, out of which the sum of ₹ 9.14 lakhs have been paid by cash. The Assessing Officer has however, disallowed the entire expenditure incurred by .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

mitted that the signature or thumb impression of the workers have been obtained on the labour payment sheet itself. He submitted that this practice is generally followed in all the construction contractors, since local labourers are generally employed from the place of site itself. Considering the characteristics of contract works, we find some merit in the contentions of the learned authorised representative. Hence the disallowance of entire amount, in our view, is not justified. However, as po .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d the same, in our view, would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on this issue and direct the Assessing Officer to restrict the disallowance out of salary and wages expenditures to Rs. one lakh. 7. The next issue relates to disallowance of value added tax payable amount by invoking the provisions of section 43B of the Act. The Assessing Officer noticed from the value added tax audit report that a sum of ₹ 1,92, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ditor in the value added tax audit report. The learned authorised representative submitted that the assessee has claimed input credit of ₹ 5,67,185. However, the value added tax auditor has restricted the same to ₹ 3,68,505. Similarly, the assessee had taken the value added tax amount paid by him as ₹ 7 lakhs. However, the value added tax auditor has taken the same as ₹ 8 lakhs. The abovesaid differences have resulted in showing of outstanding amount of ₹ 1,92,087. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the learned Departmental representative submitted that the value added tax auditor has clearly pointed out that the assessee is liable to pay a sum of ₹ 1,91,878 and by adopting the same the Assessing Officer has computed the outstanding value added tax liability at ₹ 1,92,087. Since the assessee has disallowed only a sum of ₹ 93,398 only, the Assessing Officer has disallowed the balance amount of ₹ 98,689. 10. In the rejoinder, the learned authorised representative poin .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

assessee only to the extent of ₹ 3,68,505. Further, there was difference with regard to value added tax amount paid by the assessee. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer has determined the value added tax amount payable at the year end at ₹ 1,92,087. It is not the case of the assessee that he has not accepted the value added tax audit report. Having accepted the value added tax audit report, in our view, the assessee was not justified in denying the value added tax liability shown in .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version