9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 29X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wed. As rightly pointed out by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee, the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) are not applicable to the payments already made. Therefore, the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) is not sustainable. However, in the absence of bills/vouchers produced by the assessee, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Ld. CIT(A) that the disallowance under section 37(1) is justified. However, with regard to claim of depreciation, we deem it fit and proper to remit the issue back to the file of A.O. for consideration of the same in the light of judgment of the Hon’ble A.P. High Court in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 1998-99. - Decided partly in favour of assessee for statistical purposes. - ITA.No.1065/Hyd/2015 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e expenditure aggregating to ₹ 9,74,150 in accordance with the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The assessee was required to furnish its objections and also to produce bills/vouchers relating to the said payments. In response to this, the assessee filed a letter dated 18.12.2009 stating that the proposed addition of expenses under section 40(a)(ia) is not correct since these expenses were already paid/incurred and were debited to their respective accounts and thus, amounts paid to the labourers as per the Muster Register and in the absence of any contract/sub-contract are not amenable to the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) and hence, the said addition is not maintainable. 3.1. The A.O., however, held that the assessee ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or i.e., assessee herein, within the meaning of provisions of section 194(2) of the Act. Therefore, since the assessee failed to deduct TDS, he observed that the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) are attracted and accordingly, disallowed the same at ₹ 9,74,150 and added it to the returned income of the assessee. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) which was dismissed and the assessee is in second appeal before us. 4. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has filed copies of the written submissions filed by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) as well as the computation of income for the A.Y. 2006-07, the depreciation statement as per I.T. Act and other financial documents as well as copy of the order of the Hon ble ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aim of depreciation, interest etc., is allowable. It is the case of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that in spite of bringing to the notice of the Ld. CIT(A), the directions of the Hon ble High Court in assessee s own case, the Ld. CIT(A) has not allowed the claim of depreciation to the assessee. Having gone through the Form-35 and the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A), we find that assessee s objection was only against the disallowance of the expenditure both under section 37(1) as well as under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The assessee has never made a claim for depreciation before the Ld. CIT(A). It is only before us that assessee has raised ground No.2 stating that the Ld. CIT(A) has ignored the direction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
