TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 641X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... would stand modified. Disallowance of wages expenditure - AO examined the vouchers relating to wage payments and noticed that most of them are self made thus made ad hoc disallowance of 10% of wage expenditure - HELD THAT:- As decided in own case [ 2019 (12) TMI 1537 - ITAT BANGALORE] identical disallowance was deleted as that the books of accounts were not rejected and that expenses were allowed consistently in the past in scrutiny assessments. The tribunal has also noticed that the Ld. CIT(A) has observed that the AO has not pointed any specific defects in any of the vouchers. In the instant year also, the Ld. CIT(A) has observed that the AO has given vague reasons for making the disallowance. Further the AO has not rejected the books of accounts. Accordingly, following the decisions rendered by the co-ordinate benches, we confirm the orders passed by LD CIT(A) on this issue. Disallowance made u/s. 14A r.w.r. 8D - HELD THAT:- Identical disallowance was made by the AO u/s. 14A of the Act in AY 2013-14 [ 2019 (12) TMI 1537 - ITAT BANGALORE] also and the Tribunal, in its order referred supra, has confirmed the order passed by LD CIT(A) in restricting the disallowance to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (e) Addition made u/s. 56(viia) of the Act 26,58,789 3. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance of item (a) and (e) above. He deleted the disallowance of item (b) and (d) above. He gave partial relief in respect of disallowance made under (c) above. Aggrieved, both the parties have filed appeals challenging the decision taken by Ld. CIT(A) against each of them. 4. We shall take up the appeal filed by the assessee. The Ld. A.R assessee submitted that the assessee is not pressing grounds relating to addition made u/s. 56(viia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ['the Act' for short]. Accordingly, the grounds 4 to 6 relating to this issue are dismissed as not pressed. 5. Ground no. 2 and 3 urged by the assessee relates to the disallowance of ₹ 41,47,301/- made by the AO u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The AO noticed that the assessee has paid interest to various Non Banking Financial Companies without deducting tax at source. Before AO, the assessee also failed to demonstrate that the above said interest formed part of total income of the payee companies. Accordingly, the AO disallowed the interest expenditure u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) also confirme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he co-ordinate bench in the assessee's own case relating to AY 2013-14 in ITA No. 290 318/Bang/2018 dated 20.12.2019, wherein the Tribunal had deleted identical disallowance made by the AO in that year. 11. We noticed from the order passed by the co-ordinate bench that the Tribunal had followed the decision rendered by another coordinate bench in the assessee's own case in AY 2004-05 passed in ITA No. 929 930/B/2009 dated 11.09.2009 and also the decision rendered in the following cases:- (a) PCIT vs. M/s. R.G Buildwell Engineers Ltd. (2018)(99 taxmann.com 283)(Delhi) (b) PCIT vs. M/s. R.G Buildwell Engineers Ltd. (2018)(99 taxmann.com 84)(SC) The tribunal has also observed that an identical disallowance was deleted in the above said cases for two reasons, viz., (a) that the books of accounts were not rejected and (b) that expenses were allowed consistently in the past in scrutiny assessments. The tribunal has also noticed that the Ld. CIT(A) has observed that the AO has not pointed any specific defects in any of the vouchers. In the instant year also, the Ld. CIT(A) has observed that the AO has given vague reasons for making the disallowance. Further the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... purchase of land to a concern named M/s. Naveen Hotel. The AO also noticed that the assessee has paid interest on the Overdraft account to the tune of ₹ 2,41,35,676/-. The AO took the view that the above said advance given towards purchase of land is a capital expenditure and the same has been met out of overdraft withdrawals, which resulted in incurring of interest expenditure. Accordingly the AO took the view that the corresponding interest expenditure should be capitalised in terms of proviso to sec. 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Accordingly, he disallowed a sum of ₹ 2,14,35,676/- in terms of the proviso to sec. 36(1)(iii) of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) deleted the disallowance on the reasoning that the own funds available with the assessee is more than the advance amount. The revenue is aggrieved. 15. The Ld. D.R submitted that the assessee has used its own funds to other purposes of business, which is evidenced by the fact that the assessee was constrained to use the overdraft facilities for the purpose of giving advance for land purchase. She submitted that it is for the assessee to prove the nexus between own funds and the advance given for purchase of land. She submitt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
