9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 536X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pointed out before CIT(A) by the AO in the remand report except contending that no evidence of payment of TDS was filed by the assessee. In fact the specific contention of the assessee was that TDS was not applicable on a sum of ₹ 55,000/- as it was office maintenance charges not in the nature of rent covered u/s 1941 of the Act. The AO has not raised any objections on this contention in the remand report. Consequently ground no.2 raised by the revenue is dismissed. - Decided in favour of assessee Disallowance of non- essential expenses made on the grounds of failure to produce any evidence - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- The basis on which AO made the impugned disallowance cannot be sustained and was rightly deleted b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - iii)Piper War Area : ₹ 17,14,488/- AO concluded that the assessee failed to disclose income of ₹ 16,44,488/- being the difference between the sum of ₹ 24,34,488/- which are receipts as per the TDS certificate and the sum of ₹ 7,40,000/- which was the income shown on sale in the profit and loss account. 4. Before the CIT(A) the assessee pointed out that the assessee follows mercantile system of accounting. It had raised bills for jobs executed and these appeared in the debtors list till the payments were realized. The TDS is deducted only when the actual payment is received. However, the amounts due have already been shown by the assessee in the earlier years. In other words the amount in question disclo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rent and maintenance. The assessee also made payment of ₹ 67,671/- as consultancy charges. In respect of rent and maintenance charges AO found that no tax had been deducted at source and accordingly ₹ 1,88,155/- was added to the total income by invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 9. Before CIT(A) the assessee pointed out that out of the sum of ₹ 1,88,155/- claimed under the head 'rent and maintenance charges a sum of ₹ 1,33,161/- represents rent paid to Mrs. Anita Mazumdar. The assessee had not deduct tax at source on the said payment as required us 194I of the Act and therefore addition was sustained. With regard to the remaining sum of ₹ 55,000/- the assessee pointed out that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onery and office expenses etc. AO was of the view that the aforesaid expenses were not necessary for the purpose of business of the assessee. AO also observed that the assessee failed to produce books of account bills and vouchers to verify the expenses. He found that a sum of ₹ 45,265/- was incurred towards professional tax, Audit fees and FBT etc. and allowed these expenses. With regard to the remaining sum of ₹ 6,13,923/- AO disallowed 20% of the aforesaid expenses for want of evidence to verify the expenses. Thus AO made addition of ₹ 1,22,785/- to the total income of the assessee. 14. Before CIT(A) the assessee pointed out that all the expenses in respect of which disallowance was made by the AO are necessary for t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
