TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 1012X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion put forth by the assesee is that the income was generated by harvesting yield like natural grass or allowing seasonal farmer cum workmen to cultivate lands in shares. The said explanation itself is not sufficient enough, therefore the ld. CIT(A) after considering the plea taken by the assessee has rightly held that the income so disclosed by the assessee in the return of income cannot be treated as agricultural income as defined u/s 2(1A ) of the Act. Even before us no details have been furnished by the ld. AR, therefore we see no reasons to deviate from or interfere in the findings recorded by the CIT(A). - Decided against assessee. Interest on delayed payment of TDS - allowance u/s 37 - Held that:- Amount was paid as interest on pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wing interest on delayed payment of TDS ₹ 3,268/- as not allowable under section 37(1) of the I.T. Act,1961 though the same is clearly allowable as business expenditure under the very said provisions of section 37(1) of the I.T. Act 1961and 3. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned Comm. Of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in Confirming the A.O s action of disallowing an adhoc amount of ₹ 1,00,000/- out of Labour Charges on the ground of absence of complete details, control over the workers and that the payments are not fully vouched for in spite of the fact that the work is carried out through contractors. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the return of income was e-field on 1.10.1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... agricultural income. On the other hand, ld. DR relied upon the orders passed by the revenue authorities. 6. We have heard the counsels for both the parties and we have also perused the material placed on record as well as the orders passed by the revenue authorities. We noticed that this ground has been dealt with by ld. CIT(A) in para 3.4 which is reproduced as under: I have considered facts of the case, oral contentions of the appellant as against the observations/findings of the AO in the assessment order. The contentions and submissions of the appellant are being discussed and decided as under:- i. It is the fact of the case that the appellant has disclosed income at ₹ 2,50,450/- as agricultural income. Further t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee has also not been able to produce any document in order to show that there was any agricultural produce taken from such agricultural land and therefore the assessee could not establish that there was any generation of income there from. The only explanation put forth by the assesee is that the income was generated by harvesting yield like natural grass or allowing seasonal farmer cum workmen to cultivate lands in shares. The said explanation itself is not sufficient enough, therefore the ld. CIT(A) after considering the plea taken by the assessee has rightly held that the income so disclosed by the assessee in the return of income cannot be treated as agricultural income as defined u/s 2(1A ) of the Act. Even before us no details ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ordinate Bench we dismiss this ground of appeal. Ground No.3 9. Ld. AR submitted that the assessee is engaged in the business of Civil Contractor and therefore had incurred expenses of ₹ 53,34,958/- on wages to labourers, miscellaneous expenses etc., and the said amount was rightly debited in the P L A/c. It was submitted that on the basis of estimation the AO disallowed a sum of ₹ 1,00,000/- out of total expenses whereas in fact the assessee had spent actual amount of ₹ 53,34,958/- on disbursement of wages etc. On the other hand, ld. DR relied upon the orders passed by the revenue authorities. 10. We have heard counsels for both the parties and we have also perused the material placed on record as well as the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
