2015 (11) TMI 914

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... That the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) Gwalior has erred both in law and on facts in upholding the arbitrary and unjust disallowance of Rs. 96,58,950 under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, made by the Assessing Officer, on the ground that the appellant failed to deduct tax at source under section 194C of the Act, on pay ments made to the so called transporters, by ignoring the nature of such payments. (b) That on facts and in circumstances of the appellant's case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Gwalior has erred in confirming the action of the Assess ing Officer in making disallowance of expenditure of Rs. 96,58,950, by wrongly invoking the provisions laid down under section .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... purposes of the business carried on by the appellant, thus these deserve to be allowed as business expenditure. 3.(a) That the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Gwalior has erred both in law and on facts in sustaining the disal lowance of Rs. 3,66,285 made by the Assessing Officer, with regard to claim for breakage deduction, by completely brushing aside the rel evant facts and evidences/material placed on records and/or pro duced. Such disallowance is arbitrary and unjustified and thus be kindly deleted. (b) That in the type of business carried on by the appellant, it is common practice that the contractee makes deduction for loss suf fered on account of breakage and accordingly for working out the true and correct income of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ction 194C governing the payments made to the transporters and he further submitted that there is no privity of contract between the assessee and the transporter and his another argument was that the assessee was only acting as a middle man in arranging the truck on commission basis and, therefore, he submitted that the provisions of section 194C of the Act have no application. Finally, the argument of learned counsel was that even presuming that the provisions of section 194C are applicable since there was no payment outstanding as on March 31, 2008, the ratio of the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Merilyn Shipping and Transports v. Addl. CIT [2012] 16 ITR (Trib) 1 (Visakhapatnam) [SB] is applicable. Hence no d .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X