9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (6) TMI 144X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessment year 2006-07 and 2007-08 being I.T.A.No.7019,7020 and 7054/Mum/2010, which are directed against the orders of ld. CIT(A)-41, Mumbai both dated 30.8.2010, involve a solitary issue relating to the disallowance made by AO and confirmed by ld. CIT(A) on account of brokerage claimed to be paid by the assessee to Shri Ishwarchand Goel . 3. The assessee in the present case is a company which is engaged in the business of processing and sale of fabrics. It belongs to JIMTEX GROUP. A search and seizure action under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) was conducted in the premises belonging to JIMTEX Group including the case of the assessee. Pursuant to the search, notice under section 153A of the Act was issued by the AO, i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant has made payment brokerage to Shri Ishwarchand Goel for the AY 2006-07 and 2007-08. It is pertinent to note that in the AY 2005-06 the appellant has shown the brokerage payment to Shri Ishwarchand Goel the same person which was disallowed because he has failed to prove the genuineness of this expenditure that it was incurred for the purposes. During the year under consideration the appellant has failed to furnish any evidence before the AO to prove that this expenditure was wholly and exclusively incurred for the business purpose and any services rendered by Shri Ishwarchand Goel. Therefore, the AO has made disallowance in these years also Before me the appellant has submitted that the payment was made by cheque and TDS was deducte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ure on payment of brokerage charges was wholly and exclusively incurred for the purposes of its business and since the assessee has failed to discharge the said onus, we find no justifiable reasons to interfere with the impugned orders of ld. CIT(A) confirming the disallowance made by AO on account of brokerage paid by assessee to Shri Ishwarchand Goel for both the years under consideration. The same are therefore upheld and the appeals for the assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08 are dismissed. 6. In the appeal for assessment year 2008-09 being ITA No.7054/Mum/2010, which is directed against the order of ld. CIT(A)-41, Mumbai dated 30.8.2010, the solitary issue raised by the assessee relates to disallowance of Rs.3,10,800/- made by AO and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the AO on account of its claim for depreciation on additional factory building was disputed by assessee in the appeal filed before the ld. CIT(A) and after considering the submissions made by the assessee and material available on record, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance made by AO on account of depreciation for the following reasons : "1.4 I have considered the submissions of the appellant, order of the AO and facts of the case carefully. It is noticed that the appellant has claimed an amount of Rs.31,08,000/- incurred for addition to the factory building. The AO has cleared for the details and bills etc to prove the genuineness of the expenses incurred for the addition to the factory building. However, the appellant has failed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /s ACIT (2006) 100TTJ (Mumbai) 1006 and the decision of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT V/s P D Abraham Alias Appachan and Anr (2012) 252 CTR (Ker) 407, he has contended that the statement of the assessee as well as contents of the relevant documents cannot be accepted in part and rejected in part. 10. The ld. DR, on the other hand, strongly relied on the orders of authorities below in support of the Revenue's case. 11. After considering the rival submissions and on perusal of relevant material on record, we find no infirmity in the impugned order of ld. CIT(A) confirming the disallowance made by AO on account of assessee's claim for depreciation on additional construction of factory building in MIDC, Dombivili. Although ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee. It is the case where the said statement and the relevant seized documents were not sufficient to establish the case of the assessee of having spent an amount of Rs.31,08,000/- for the construction of additional factory building and the claim of the assessee for depreciation on such additional building was disallowed by the authorities below on the ground that the assessee failed to substantiate the said claim by bringing any documentary evidence. We therefore, find no infirmity in the orders of authorities below in disallowing the assessee's claim of depreciation and confirming the said disallowance, we dismiss the appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2008-09. 12. In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are dis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
