9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 1463X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red in appreciating the factual aspect of the matter with regard to the payments made relating to Freight charges and erred in confirming the disallowance made by the AO by invoking provisions of sec. 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. For that the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have properly considered the submissions made by the appellant in regard to payment of Freight charges to M/s. Air India and on the basis of the evidences adduced ought to have held that non-deduction of tax u/s. 194C of the Act did not entail any liability for disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act." 4. Briefly stated facts are that during the assessment proceedings the AO noticed that the assessee had paid freight charges of Rs. 1,66,367/- and Rs. 7,73,864/- to M/s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve reflected this payment in question towards them in their respective Return of Income and have taken into account this sum of amount in their Return of Income and has paid tax due on the income declared in the Return of Income, and fulfils the conditions stipulated u/s. 200 of the Act, then no disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act is warranted. Needless to say, the AO may call for the aforesaid details from the payees in case it is found necessary. So, we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and remand the matter back to AO for fresh adjudication as directed above. Both these grounds of appeal of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 6. Ground no. 4 of assessee's appeal is against the action of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming Rs. 89,930 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of assessee firm Shri Ripple P. Doshi holds 33.20% in the assessee firm. And the firm had received advance/loan from a company called M/s. Modern Solaurum Pvt. Ltd. wherein Shri Ripple P. Doshi was having a shareholding of 25%. So, AO added the accumulated profit of M/s. Modern Solaurum Pvt. Ltd. of Rs. 89,930/- as deemed dividend u/s. 2(22)(e) of the Act in the hands of the assessee firm . We note that assessee firm is not a shareholder of M/s. Modern Solaurum Pvt. Ltd. So, sec. 2(22)(e) of the Act is not attracted against the assessee firm and so the impugned addition invoking sec. 2(22)(e) of the Act cannot be sustained as held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Ankitech pvt ltd 2011[5] TMI 325, wherein this principal/ratio has been h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
