TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 1086X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) No. 1 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI) 1. By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and order dated 29.4.2014 passed bythe Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench D , Ahmedabad in IT(SS)A No. 2826/Ahd/2010 for AY 2007-08. 2. The facts of the present case are that that the assessee has filed original return of income on 31.10.2007 showing total income of ₹ 9,50,66,931/-. Thereafter, revised return of income was filed on 20.3.2008, showing the total income of ₹ 9,50,43,048/-. The case was selected for scrutiny by issuing notice u/s. 143(2) by DCIT Anand Circle on 24.7.2008. Subsequently, the case was assigned to the Addl. CIT, Anand Range. Thereafter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s case. In the case of UE Trade Corporation v. DCIT, the Hon ble Tribunal in similar facts has held as under: 6. We have heard both the parties and gone through the material available on record. We have also gone through the Tax Audit Report in Form No. 3CD placed at pages 20 to 49 of the Paper Book. Annexure-XIV of the Tax Audit report gives the details of tax deductible under various sections of the Act. Page 1 of Annexure-XIV gives the details of payments on which tax has not been deducted at all. The total amount of expenditure is at ₹ 7,32,827/-. Pages 2 to 6 of Annexure-XIV give the details where there is a shortfall due to lesser deduction than required to be deducted. The total amount of expenses is at ₹ 20,24,455 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... covered by the decisions of the Tribunal referred to about. No doubt assessee is in default as per provisions of sec. 201 but disallowance of the expenditure is not permissible u/s. 40(a)(ia), respectfully following the precedents it is held that disallowance of ₹ 20,24,455/- is not justified. The Assessing Officer is directed to delete the addition. In view of the above, the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) deleting the additions of ₹ 60,60,960/- and ₹ 8,86,940/- is hereby upheld. Both these grounds of revenue are dismissed. 4. In that view of the matter, the same view is confirmed by the Tribunal in its order, and therefore, we are in complete agreement with the order passed by the Tribunal. No substantial questio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
