9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 135X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or non deduction of TDS thereby invoking Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act along with disallowance of interest expenses of Rs. 31,875/-; respectively, in proceedings u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in short 'the Act'. Heard both sides. Case file perused. 2. We come to former two substantive grounds challenging both the lower authorities' action invoking Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act on packaging material and cloth bags payments of Rs. 76,156/- and Rs. 1,09,035/-; respectively. The assessee had made the former payment on purchase of packaging material in the nature of plain plastic bags from M/s. Win Prints. Its case before the lower authorities throughout has been that it had not assigned or got performed any contractual work alike job ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 's last substantive ground assailing correctness of interest disallowance of Rs. 31,875/- as affirmed by the CIT(A) as follows: "7. Ground of appeal No.4 is against disallowance of interest expenses for advance given to Pharmalab India Pvt. Ltd. for Rs. 31,875/-. The Assessing Officer has made the disallowance, noting as under: "The assessee's argument is not acceptable for the following reasons: - i. the assessee has not produced any supporting evidences that, he has paid for constructing to any machinery to Pharma Lab India P.Ltd. ii. The assessee also failed to produce any evidence that, under which circumstances the machines alleged to be produced by Pharma Lab India. iii. The assessee did not paid any compensation or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0/- given as advance to Pharmalab India Pvt. Ltd. for purchase of machinery which was cancelled and the amount was received back to the assessee." 7.2 I have considered the assessment order and the submissions made by the appellant. The appellant has not submitted any evidence in support of its claim that money received from Pharmalab India Pvt. Ltd, was return of advance given for machines. In view of the above, I agree with the Assessing Officer and disallowance made by him is confirmed." 5. Shri Divatia submits at the outset that the assessee could not submit any evidence in support of its claim that the money in question received from M/s. Pharmalab India Pvt. Ltd. was in the nature of return of advance given for machines. He seeks ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
