TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 2117X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Sunanda Nayak has disclosed has disclosed the amount received from the assessee in her return of income and paid due tax thereon, in view of the decision of CIT vs. Ansal Land Mark Township (P) Ltd. [ 2015 (9) TMI 79 - DELHI HIGH COURT] then, no disallowance in the hands of the assessee is called for - set aside the orders of lower authorities and restore this issue back to the file of the AO to verify whether the recipient Smt. Sunanda Nayak has disclosed the amount received from the assessee in her return of income or not. - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purpose. Differential amount of receipts as per 26AS and as per profit and loss - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer on the ground th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer following the decision of Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, 366 ITR 170(Guj) and the CBDT Circular No.22 of 2015 dated 17.12.2015. 5. Before us, ld A.R. submitted that as the employee s contribution to PF and ESI is deposited in the respective authorities before the due date of filing return of income u/s.139(1), therefore, same deserves to be allowed. 6. Ld D.R. supported the orders of lower authorities. 7. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the orders of lower authorities and materials available on record. In the instant case, the Assessing Officer has observed that an amount of ₹ 43,66,585/- towards ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of appeal reads as under: 2. The order of the CIT(A) confirming the addition of rent paid amounting to ₹ 3,78,000/- without deduction of TDS u/s.40(a)(ia) is not justified and bad in law. 12. The brief facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer found that the assessee has paid an amount of ₹ 3,78,000/- to Smt. Sunanda Nayak without deduction of tax at source u/s.194 I of the Act. Therefore, the Assessing Officer disallowed the same u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act. 13. On appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer. 14. Before us, ld A.R. submitted that the amount of R.3,78,000/- paid to Smt. Sunanda Nayak by cheque and, therefore, same should be allowed as deduction. 15. On the other hand, l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... disclosed by the assessee in the accounts with the details of receipts disclosed in 26AS statement, found that receipts to the extent of ₹ 1,89,971/- have not been disclosed by the assessee and, therefore, same was treated as undisclosed receipts and added to the income of the assessee. 19. On appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer on the ground that 26AS statement clearly revealed that the assessee has failed to disclose receipts from certain parties and has also failed to reconcile the discrepancies found in this respect in the 26AS statement. 20. Before us, ld A.R. of the assessee has also failed to reconcile the discrepancies found in 26AS statement. 21. In view of above, we do not find any reaso ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
