9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 103X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng agreed to the disallowance of Rs. 9,402/- being 1/5th of these expenses before the Assessing Officer, the AR can not take a u-turn without contesting the veracity of the statement of the Assessing Officer – appeal of assessee dismissed. Addition on account of excess of interest more than 12% - Held that:- Interest paid by the assessee to her nephews is not excessive and unreasonable having regard to the fair market value of the goods, services or facilities for which the payment is made on the legitimate needs of the business and, hence, no disallowance u/s 40A(2)(b) of the Act. - ITA No. 651/Chd/2012 - - - Dated:- 10-7-2012 - SHRI H.L.KARWA, J. Appel lant By : Shri Tej Mohan Singh Respondent By : Shri N.K. Sai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of CIT(A). 5. I have heard the rival submissions and have also perused the materials available on record. Shri Tej Mohan Singh, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee is a lady and business is managed by employees and, therefore, the element of personal use of car and telephone is not there. Alternatively, Shri Tej Mohan Singh, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by CIT(A) is on higher side. In the instant case, the Assessing Officer has made adhoc disallowance which appears to be excessive and on the higher side. Considering the nature of assessee s business as well as facts and circu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ame cannot be agitated in appeal before the Tribunal . The view taken by me is duly supported by following judgments: - i ) Banta Singh Kartar Singh v CIT, Patiala (1980) 125 ITR 239(P H) ii ) Jivat lal Purtapshi v CIT, Bombay (1967) 65 ITR 261 (Bom) 8. In my opinion, the assessee agreed to the impugned addition before both the authorities below, therefore, cannot be held to be aggrieved by these orders. Consequently, I dismiss ground No.3 the appeal. 9. Ground No. 4 of the appeal reads as under: - 4. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has further erred in upholding the addition of Rs.24,000/- for interest chargeable at 16% on a loan of Rs. 1,50,000/-- advanced to her sister-in-law which is arbitrary unjustified ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shrenik Jain 120761/- 157208/- 36,447/- 79,065/- 13. On appeal , the CIT(A) confirmed the addition for the reasons stated in para 8.2 of the impugned order. 14. I have heard the rival submissions. The main content ion of Shri Tej Mohan Singh, Ld. Counsel for the assessee was that the assessee has taken unsecured loans from S/Shri Shreayan Jain and Shrenik Jain, her nephews on which interest is paid / claimed and al lowed from year to year. He further submitted that the rate of interest paid and accepted on loans up to assessment year 2007-08 has been 21% as per prevalent market and bank rates at that time. According to Shri Tej Mohan Singh, Ld. Counsel for the assessee even the bank charging interest rate r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
