9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 1328X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee in respect of TDS from hard-copies of certificates and also confirmation of the deductor - Since the CIT(1A) as such has not given any relief, there was no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A), the same is upheld – Decided against Revenue. - ITA No.2490,2491/Ahd/2012 - - - Dated:- 2-8-2013 - A Mohan Alankamony And Kul Bharat, JJ. For the Appellant : Shri O P Batheja, Sr. DR. For the Respondent : Shri M K Patel, AR. ORDER:- PER : Kul Bharat Both these appeals by the Revenue are directed against the separate orders of the Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-XV, Ahmedabad ( CIT(A) for short) both are dated 06/08/2012 pertaining to Assessment Years (AYs) 2008-09 2009-10. Since common issues are involved, bot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... considering the submissions, allowed the appeal. While allowing the appeal, ld.CIT(A) directed the AO to allow the returned loss and also directed to allow the claim of TDS after verifications from the hard-copies of certificates with appellant and also confirmation from the deductor if required. 3. Ground No.1 relates to disallowance of Rs.12,42,716/- made on account of interest expenses. Sr.DR Shri O.P.Batheja vehemently supported the order of the AO and submitted that the AO observed that the assessee could not establish the business expediency for incurring expenses and the details have been sought by the AO was not provided by the assessee. On the contrary, ld.counsel for the assessee, Shri M.K.Patel relied on the order of the ld.CI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e case. The undisputed fact remains that the assessee was awarded the contract-work and the work was further subletted to the sub-contractor and the money given to the sub-contractor was for execution of work. Nothing has been brought on record that money was given for any other purpose. In the absence of same, ld.CIT(A) was justified in holding that the money was advanced for business purpose. Hence, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A), the same is upheld. Therefore, ground raised by the Revenue is hereby rejected. 5. Second ground relates to the allowance of the claim of assessee in respect of TDS. We find that the ld.CIT(A) has given direction to the AO to verify the claim of assessee in respect of TDS from hard-cop ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
