9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (4) TMI 655X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessment year 2005-06. 2. The ground No.1 is general in nature and does not require any adjudication. 3. Ground No.2 and 3 are reproduced as under:- "2. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,80,136/- on account of labour charges paid to three different persons. He erred in invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act. 3. The Learned CIT(Appeals) erred in confirming disallowance of Rs. 2,50,545/- u/s. 40(a)(ia) in respect of interest paid on deposits to various parties who have submitted form 15G and 15H for non deduction of tax at source. " 4. Brief facts of the case are that during the assessment proceedings Assessing Officer observed that assessee has not deducted tax at source on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r and this provisions cannot be invoked to disallow which have actually been paid during the previous year without deduction of TDS. Thus, the issue is now covered by the above decision of Special Bench in the case of M/s. Merilyn Shipping & Transports (supra) in favour of the assessee and therefore following the same, the addition of Rs. 1,80,136/- and Rs. 2,50,545/- made by Assessing Officer and sustained by Ld. CIT(A) invoking the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act may kindly be deleted. 7. On the other hand, Ld. SR-DR however, supported the orders of authorities below. 8. After hearing both the parties and perusing the record we find that there is no dispute about the fact that the sum of Rs. 1,80,136/- was paid by the assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l expenses and depreciation of car." 10. During the assessment proceedings Assessing Officer observed that assessee has debited telephone expenses of Rs. 32,663/-, petrol expenses of Rs. 98,241/- depreciation on car of Rs. 2,06,477/- aggregating to Rs. 3,37,381/-. Since the vouchers pertaining to these expenses were not properly maintained and also the assessee could not substantiate that the use of vehicle was wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. The AO added 20% of these expenses i.e. Rs. 67,348/- to the income of the assessee. This action of the AO was confirmed in appeal by the Ld. CIT(A). 11. At the time of hearing before us, it was submitted on behalf of the assessee that expenses were incurred wholly and exclusively ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
