TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 105X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y other provisions to be applicable. We direct Ld.AO to delete the addition made u/s.40 a (ia) - ground raised by assessee stands allowed Addition of HUF income - AO alleged that there is no separate existence of HUF and clubbed the income - HELD THAT:- For clubbing, there has to be common management, interglacing or interlocking of funds. Ld.AO has not given proper finding in respect of these, before clubbing the income of HUF in the hands of assessee. We therefore set aside the issue to Ld.AO for verifying the same. Assessee should file all relevant details to prove contrary. In the event there are sufficient materials to establish that both are independent business, though working having common address. Ld.AO shall give proper oppor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s paid amounting to ₹ 48,000 for not deducting TDS under section 194J and the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the same. 2.2 The learned AO and the CIT(A) have erred in not appreciating that the impugned payment was made to a part time employee and hence not liable for TDS. 2.3 Even otherwise, the payments were not liable for TDS under section 194J. 2.4 On facts and circumstances of the case and law applicable, impugned disallowance of ₹ 48,000 should be deleted in entirety. 2.5Without prejudice, the disallowance, if any, should be restricted to 30% of the impugned payment. 3.Addition of HUF income:- The learned assessing officer has erred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In facts and in the circumstances of the case and law applicable, interest under section 234a, 234B and 234D is not leviable. The appellant denies its liability to pay interest under section 234B 234A .6. 6.1 Prayer:- In view of the above and other grounds to be adduced at the time of hearing, the appellant prays that the order passed by the CIT(A) to the extent prejudicial to the appellant be quashed OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE (I) (a)Disallowance of accounts writing charges amounting to ₹ 48,000 be deleted In the alternative and without prejudice (b) Impugned disallowance be restricted to ₹ 14,400 b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on disallowed - ₹ 49,208/- 3.Aggrieved by additions made, assessee preferred appeal before Ld.CIT (A) who upheld the same. 4. Aggrieved by additions made by Ld.CIT (A), assessee is in appeal before us now. 4.1.Ground No.1 is general in nature and therefore do not require adjudication. 4.3. Ground No.2 is in respect of disallowance made under section 40 a (ia) of the Act. It has been submitted by Ld.AR that assessee debited sum of ₹ 48,000/- towards account writing charges. Ld.AO observed that no TDS was deducted against said sum, and so held that there is violation of section 40 a (ai) of the Act. Assessee submitted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny other provisions to be applicable. We direct Ld.AO to delete the addition made u/s.40 a (ia) of the Act. Accordingly, this ground raised by assessee stands allowed. 5. Ground No.3 is in respect of addition of HUF income in the hands of assessee. 5.1. Ld.AR submitted that assessee carries on proprietary business and also has similar business in status of S.Kothari HUF. Ld.AO computed profits earned by HUF in the hands of assessee holding it to be one and the same business. Ld.AR submitted that, HUF is also carrying on same business as Trader in textiles at Mumbai. Ld.AO made addition to the extent of profit earned by HUF in the hands of assessee as both are managed by assessee. 5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er opportunity to assessee as per law. Accordingly, this ground raised by assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 6.Ground No. 4 is in respect of rent paid and depreciation claimed in respect of flat at Mumbai. 6.1. Ld.AR submitted that flat was used as a temporary halting place by assessee son to carry out the business in Mumbai he submitted that assessee paid rent to his son and also treated it is a capital assets shown in the books of accounts depreciation is claimed in respect of the same. 6.2. On the contrary, Ld.DR submitted that assessing officer has analyse this issue in detail and has come to conclusion that assessee has claimed it is business asset insofar as 50% of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
