9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of hire charges u/s 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS u/s 194-I. 2. Disallowance of plant repair and maintenance, site, and water expenses. 3. Deletion of addition u/s 40(a)(ia) for labour expenses. 4. Deletion of addition u/s 40A(3) for cash expenditure. Issue No. 1: The assessee challenged the disallowance of Rs. 38,65,490/- u/s 40(a)(ia) for not deducting TDS u/s 194-I. The AO made the addition as the payment was made to Shri Girraj Sharma without TDS. The assessee argued that payments were made to 39 parties, each below Rs. 1,20,000/-, thus not requiring TDS. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition, stating that the payments were made to Shri Girraj Sharma and the provisions of sec. 40(a)(ia) were applicable. The assessee raised an additional ground that the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) apply only to amounts payable as on the date, and since the amount was paid during the year, no disallowance should be made. The Tribunal admitted the additional ground and directed the AO to verify the payments, referencing the ITAT Agra Bench decision in Suraj Bhan Agencies (P) Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT and the ITAT Vishakhapatnam Special Bench decision in Merilyn Shipping & Transports vs. Addl. CIT. Issue No. 2: The assessee challenged the 5% disallowance of Rs. 83,415/- out of plant repair and maintenance, site, and water expenses, while the Revenue challenged the deletion of Rs. 2,49,246/- on the same issue. The AO made a 20% disallowance due to incomplete vouchers. The CIT(A) reduced the disallowance to 5%, considering the nature of the business and the fact that vouchers are not completely maintained. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the books were audited and substantial vouchers were produced. Issue No. 3: The Revenue challenged the deletion of Rs. 42,70,290/- u/s 40(a)(ia) for labour expenses. The AO disallowed the amount as no TDS was deducted on payments to M/s. Ravi Construction Co. and Mr. Uttam Singh. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, noting that payments to individual labourers did not exceed the prescribed limit and that the assessee was a sub-contractor of M/s. Ravi Construction Co., which had deducted TDS. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not properly consider the facts and restored the AO's order, noting that the assessee made contrary pleas and manipulated records to circumvent TDS provisions. Issue No. 4: The Revenue challenged the deletion of Rs. 5,11,632/- u/s 40A(3) for cash expenditure. The AO made the addition for cash payments exceeding Rs. 20,000/- on 31.03.2008. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, verifying that no single cash payment exceeded Rs. 20,000/-. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, as no evidence was provided to contradict the findings. Conclusion: The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes, and the departmental appeal is partly allowed.
|
