9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 823X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [CIT(A)], dated 29.07.2024 for Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a partnership firm engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of food items. The return of income for AY 2015-16 was filed on 22.09.2016 declaring a total income of Rs. 1,93,910/-. Against the said r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s that the payment is made a Kerala Government undertaking, therefore, falls with the exceptions emanating under rule. 6DD of the I.T. Rules. Therefore, no addition is called for. 6. On the other hand, the learned Sr. DR opposed the contentions of the appellant. 7. The solitary issue that arises for our consideration is whether the CIT(A) was justified in confirming the is u/s. 40A(3) of the Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. SRC Aviation P. Ltd. [2013] 37 taxamann.com 308 (Delhi) and the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Arvind Mills Ltd. [2014] 52 taxmann.com 475 (Guj). 8. Since the payment in question falls under the exceptions enumerated under rule 6DD, we delete the addition. 9. In the result, appeal of the appellant stands allowed. Order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
