9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 905X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... BANSAL AND SHRI RAJENDRA, JJ. For the Appellant : Shri B.Shankar For the Respondent : Shri O.P. Meena ORDER PER I.P.BANSAL, J.M This is an appeal filed by the assessee. It is directed against the order passed by Ld. CIT(A)-22, Mumbai dated 09/01/2012 for assessment year 2006-0. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee read as under: 1. The learned CIT (appeals) has erred in treating the expenditure of Rs.1,92,660/- as capital expenditure. 2. The learned CIT (Appeals) has not properly gone through the entire evidence presented before him and has wrongly concluded that these expenses are capital in nature. 3. In the alternate and without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT (Appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ture are capital in nature and in this manner Ld. CIT(A) has upheld the disallowance. The assessee is aggrieved, hence, has filed the aforementioned appeal. 3. Ld. AR has produced before us a chart, which is annexed as Annexure-1 to this order. Referring to the aforementioned chart he submitted that AO also well as Ld. CIT(A) without applying their mind have again repeated the disallowance. He submitted that so far as it relates to consultancy charges for Provident Fund, RTO work and trailer certification, all these payments were less than Rs.20,000/-, hence, did not require deduction of tax. For professional charges of RTO Work given to Mr. Deepak Jagnade he submitted that TDS has been charged on the payment of Rs.1,06,470/-. However, on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the payment is below a sum of Rs.20,000/-. So far as it relates to payment made by the assessee to Mr. Deepak Jagnade, it was observed from the vouchers that he has specifically mentioned truck numbers on which he has charged consultancy charges. Wherever any fee or entry tax was involved that was separately charged. Therefore, the charges made by him pertain to only services provided by him and those charges cannot be said to be relating to purchase of vehicles. Moreover, according to the submissions made by the assessee before Ld. CIT(A), the assessee had deducted tax on these payments on a sum of Rs.1,06,470/-. Rest of the amount of Rs.59,890/- was stated to be added to the income of the assessee in the computation of income for arriv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
