2013 (3) TMI 758

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the following grounds :- "1. For that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) is arbitrary, illegal and bad in law. 2. For that the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of the freight payment of ₹ 6,17,010/- u/s 40(a)(ia) which was duly paid and no amount was payable as at the end of the year, therefore the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) were not applicable. 3. For that the ld. CIT(A) erred in disallowing the expenses of freight charges amount of ₹ 6,17,010/- for violation of provision of section 40(a)(ia) of the Income tax Act 1961 and holding that the payment made to transporter which was fallen within the purview of section 194C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. For that the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition amount .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sment year the assessee had paid ₹ 18,32,235/- towards freight charges. It was the submission that the AO was of the view that as the assessee had not deducted TDS u/s 194C of the Act the freight charges was liable to be disallowed by invoking the provision of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. It was the submission that the issue of the applicability of the amended provision of section 194C of the Act being effective from 01.06.2007 no disallowance can be made by invoking the provision of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act for Assessment year 2007-08. He placed reliance on the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of DCIT. Circle-34, Kolkata vs Devendra Kr.Dugar in ITA No.1852/Kol/2009 dated 02.06.2011. In reply the ld. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... y the ld. CIT(A) stands deleted. 6. In regard to ground nos.4, 5 and 6 it was submitted by the ld. AR that the issues were against the action of the ld. CIT(A)in confirming the adhoc disallowances made by the AO out of labour charges, traveling charges and Telephone and fax expenses. It was the submission that the AO had made adhoc disallowances of 20% holding that the expenses were not amenable to verification and also on account of possible personal usage. It was the submission that the ld. CIT(A) had reduced the disallowances to 10%. It was the submission that no adhoc disallowance was called for as no specific defect has been pointed out. In reply the ld. DR vehemently supported the orders of the AO and the ld. CIT(A). 7. We have cons .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X