TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 135X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s without comparing the nature of payments therein. We thus accept assessee’s arguments qua former disallowance on packaging material made u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act. Disallowance on purchase of cloth bags done from M/s. Desai Brothers herein as well the Assessing Officer quoted assessee’s failure in proving as to have no printing made for the plastic bags in question. The CIT(A)’s findings are also on identical lines that the assessee had deducted TDS to payments made to the very party on other bills. We reiterate our relevant findings in preceding paragraph to delete this disallowance as well. Correctness of interest disallowance - Held that:- As the assessee could not submit any evidence in support of its claim that the money in ques ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... grounds challenging both the lower authorities action invoking Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act on packaging material and cloth bags payments of ₹ 76,156/- and ₹ 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 work or labour payments so as to be covered within the scope and ambit of Section 194C of the Act prescribed in TDS deduction thereupon. The Assessing Officer quoted its failure in producing evidence to prove that there was no printing made for plastic bags. The CIT(A) on the other hand t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he 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 any token amount for rejecting a machine which was made specially for the assessee. Hence, the preponderance of the probability suggests that, the amount was advanced without any business purpose. The assessee ahs taken loan from Sme.t Shital P. Shah and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant. 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 one more innings by stating that the assessee is very much ready and willing to file all necessary evidence before the assessing authority. After arguing for sometime against this contention, learned Departmental Representa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
