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

2016 (11) TMI 877 - ITAT HYDERABAD

2016 (11) TMI 877 - ITAT HYDERABAD - TMI - Addition u/s 40(a)(ia) - non deduction of tds - Held that:- The assessee has made the payments by the end of the relevant financial year and therefore, the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) are not applicable. The CIT (A) has given a correct finding that the payment has already been made and therefore, nothing remained payable at the end of the relevant financial year and therefore, the disallowance is not sustained - Decided in favour of assessee - C .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the individual directors of the company in allowing the assessee’s appeal - Decided in favour of assessee - ITA No. 135/Hyd/2016 - Dated:- 19-10-2016 - Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, Judicial Member And Shri S. Rifaur Rahman , Accountant Member For Revenue: Shri A. Sitarama Rao, DR For Assessee: Shri B. Satyanarayana Murty ORDER Per Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, J. M. This is Revenue s appeal for the A.Y 2012-13 against the order of the CIT (A), dated 30.11.2015 deleting the addition made by the AO u/s 40(a)(i .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

16,00,000 on buildings should not be disallowed as there was no building, but there were sheds only. The assessee was also asked to explain as to why the claim of additional depreciation mentioned in the depreciation schedule should not disallowed and the assessee was asked to produce all the bills/vouchers with regard to the additions to the fixed assets such as buildings and plant & machinery. Assessee was also asked to furnish the breakup of the plant and machinery, itemwise failing which .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

.03.2015. In response to this show cause notice, the assessee appeared through his representative on 13.7.2015 and promised to furnish the books of account and accordingly produced the same before the AO. 4. On perusal of the material furnished by the assessee, the AO observed certain discrepancies. He observed that the assessee has claimed to have contributed a sum of ₹ 10,17,000 to M/s. Venco Research & Breeding Farm Private Limited (Hyderabad Division) for purchase of parent male an .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

agents and the assessee has failed to make the TDS. As regards the computation of long term capital gain on sale of a land, the AO found that the indexed cost of acquisition claimed by the assessee is not correct. According to him, the cost of land disposed works out to ₹ 1,84,404 whereas the assessee has shown an amount of ₹ 2,70,000. He therefore, brought the excess of the amount to tax. Further, he also observed that the assessee has received an amount of ₹ 2,51,00,000 towar .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

same and hence the Revenue is in appeal before us by raising the following grounds of appeal: 1 The Learned CIT (A) erred on both law and facts of the case. 2 The Learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of ₹ 9,45,000/- made by the invoking provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the I.T Act. 3 The Learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of expenditure u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act, holding that the amounts are not payable as at the end of the year, ignoring that the provisions ar .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

g, not considering the fact that said decision is placed under Interim Suspension by Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and State of Andhra Pradesh. 6 The Learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 1 ,35,00,000/- 7 The Learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 1 ,35,00,000/ - without giving a finding that Shri Harbans Singh and Ms. Taruna Singh are part owners of the property sold. 8 The Learned CIT (A) erred in deleting 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

ssessee that the assessee has made the payments by the end of the relevant financial year and therefore, the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) are not applicable. The CIT (A) has given a finding that the payment has already been made and therefore, nothing remained payable at the end of the relevant financial year and therefore, the disallowance is not sustained. It is the case of the Revenue that the decision of the Special Bench in the case of Merilyin Shipping & Transport has been suspended .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

dictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Janapriya Engineers Syndicate reported in (2015) 54 Taxmann.com 346 (AP&T) held that until and unless the decision of the Special Bench is upset by the Hon'ble High Court, it binds Smaller Bench and Coordinated Bench of the Tribunal. In view of the same, we do not see any reason to interfere with the decision of the CIT (A) on this ground. 7. As regards Grounds No.6 to 8, it is the case of the assessee that the assessee had entered into a devel .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s of the assessee company, Shri Harbans Singh and his daughter Ms. Taruna Singh, had entered into separate agreements with SHPL for purchase of office units in HUDA Techno Enclave, Madhapur for which they have paid a sum of ₹ 65.00 lakhs and ₹ 70.00 lakhs respectively. Pursuant to the cancellation of the development agreement, these sale agreements were also cancelled on 1.4.2011 and as such, money paid by them was to be returned by SHPL. It is submitted that the assessee had receive .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s their dues and the balance of ₹ 1.16 crores was retained by the assessee towards compensation receivable from SHPL for demolishing the existing structures and the same was also reflected in the Depreciation Schedule and the WDV was reduced to that extent. After considering these submissions of the assessee, the CIT (A) has allowed the assessee s appeal and the Revenue is in appeal before us. 8. According to the learned DR, the sum of ₹ 4.51 crores has been received by the assessee .....

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