9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 1029X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .5 is concerned, at the outset, the learned Authorised Representative submitted, under the instructions of the assessee, he is not pressing the same. Hence, ground No.5 is dismissed as not pressed. In grounds No. 2, 3 and 4, the assessee has challenged the disallowance of expenditure of Rs. 5,29,840 claimed on account of freight charges, invoking S.40(a)(ia) of the Act. Assessee has also raised additional grounds, which relate to the issue of disallowance under S.40(a)(ia) amounting to Rs. 5,29,840, and a further sum of Rs. 1,26,408 on account of commission, which the assessee had omitted to raise in the original grounds. 3. Briefly stated, assessee is a firm. For the assessment year under consideration, it filed its return of income on 23 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions of S.40(a)(ia) would not be applicable. In support of such contention, he relied upon the following decisions- (a) Common order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Hyderabad Bench 'B' in the case of ACIT V/s. Janapriya Properties Pvt. Ltd. in ITA Nos.1614, 1622, 1623 a 1624/Hyd/2012 dated 19.1.2015 (b) Common order of ITAT, Hyderabad Bench 'B' in the case of Ushodaya Enterprises Ltd. V/s. DCIT (ITA Nos.676/Hyd/2009 and 411/Hyd/2010 dated 7.1.2015 (c) Order of Mumbai Bench 'A' of ITAT in the case of Arcadia Share & Stock Brokers P. Ltd. V/s. DCIT (ITA No.1871/Mum/2013) dated 22.12.2014 6. The Learned Departmental Representative relied upon the reasoning of the departmental authorities. He also submitted that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... us year. Of course, it is a fact that the decision of the Special Bench was challenged before the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court by the Department. However, the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court vide judgment dated 24.6.2014 in the case of Janapriya Properties P. Ltd. (ITA No.352 of 2014), clarified the position observing that since the decision of the Special Bench is binding on the division benches of the Tribunal, it is open to the Tribunal either to follow the decision or not to follow. Keeping in view the clarification of the Hon'ble High Court as aforesaid, the coordinate bench in order dated 19.1.2015 in the case ofACIT V/s. Janapiriya Properties Ltd. (ITA No.1614/Hyd/2012 and others), deleted addition made on account ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
