Contact us   Feedback   Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (1) TMI 405 - ITAT AHMEDABAD

2016 (1) TMI 405 - ITAT AHMEDABAD - TMI - Non deduction of tds on repairs and maintenance expenses - Held that:- It can be assumed that the repairs and maintenance expenses debited to the profit & loss account was purely in the nature of labour charges for repairs and maintenance and did not include any expenditure on account of purchase of any components/parts. We find that the AO has not made any enquiry with regard to the nature of expenditure. However, before the ld.CIT(A), the assessee has .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

hodhan, AR For The Revenue : Shri D.C. Mishra, Sr.DR ORDER PER SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER : These appeals by different two assessees are directed against the separate orders of the Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-II, Baroda [ CIT(A) in short] both identically dated 26/07/2010 pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2006-07. Since common issues are involved in both these appeals, these were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. We .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n. By confirming this addition the ld.CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that payment released for arranging the business of transportation was net of agreed commission by the arranger, that would not entail deduction of tax and hence this action of ld.CIT(A) being without any merits or - justification deserves to be quashed. Ld. CIT(A) ought to have deleted the disallowance made by AO. 2. Learned CIT(A) has further erred in confirming said addition by holding the assessee defaulter u/s.19 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

erred in rejecting the submissions of the appellant in support of the claim that no TDS was deductible on the said payment. Ld.CIT(A) ought to have admitted the documents submitted and called for remand report from AO instead of denying the opportunity to the appellant to substantiate the claim. The order of ld.CIT(A) being against principles of Natural justice deserves to be quashed and opportunity be granted to the appellant. 4. Levy of interest u/s.234A, 234B & 234C of the Act is not jus .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ntenance expenses of ₹ 4,58,971/-. Against the said assessment order, assessee carried the matter before the ld.CIT(A), who after considering the submissions, rejected the appeal. Aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before us. 2.1. The appeal(s) is/are barred by 192 days. A petition for seeking of delay has been filed by the assessee(s). The assessee has also placed an Affidavit dated 04/08/2015 on behalf Shri Deepak P.Adhvaryu stating therein that he was .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rate attempt on the part of the assessee to take anti-advantage of the delay. Therefore, the ld.counsel for the assessee submitted that the delay be condoned in the interest of justice. 2.2. On the contrary, ld.Sr.DR opposed the submission of the ld.counsel for the assessee. 2.3. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below as well as the Affidavit filed on behalf of the assessee. Looking to the totality of the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

3.1. At the outset, the ld.counsel for the assessee submitted that both the appeals are required to be restored to the file of AO for verification and decision afresh. The ld.counsel for the assessee submitted that the AO has invoked the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act on the ground that the assessee has not deducted the tax on the commission of ₹ 3,66,469/- and other expenditure on repairs & maintenance of ₹ 4,58,971/-. On the first issue, regarding the commission, th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t is the contention of the assessee that these receipts are not of the contractual in nature. However, the ld.counsel for the assessee submitted that the receipts have been offered to tax by the concerned party. In respect of other issues, i.e. non deduction of tax, the authorities have failed to appreciate the fact that the payments were not exceeded ₹ 50,000/- and wherever such payments which exceeded ₹ 20,000/- has been accepted for disallowance. 4.1. After considering the rival s .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ded that the payments did not exceed the prescribed limit, therefore there was no requirement to deduct the tax. We find that the AO has made disallowance on the basis that the expenditure, like spare-parts expenses of ₹ 1,17,237/- and tyre & tube expenses of ₹ 5,23,119/- are separately debited in the profit & loss account. Therefore, it can be assumed that the repairs and maintenance expenses of ₹ 4,58,971/- debited to the profit & loss account was purely in the na .....

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