9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 755X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facts and circumstances, we find some force in the claim of the assessee. However, in the absence of any details being available before us, we deem it fit to restore the issue back to the file of Assessing Officer to decide as per fact and law. The assessee is directed to file the necessary evidence that the cash was given to the drivers for meeting various expenses and also to explain how that cash was reimbursed by the transporters, since the onus of incurring the said expenditure was on transporters. - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes. Claim of deduction under section 80C - Held that:- No deduction is to be allowed under section 80C of the Act on account of tuition fees paid in respect of grand children of the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... prejudice to other Grounds of Appeals and on the basis of facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeal)-I, Nashik has erred in holding that appellant's case is not covered under any of the exceptions mentioned in Rule 8DD of the Income Tax Rules particularly when the town is not served by any bank to the payee. 3. Without prejudice to other Grounds of Appeals and on the basis of facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeal)-I, Nashik has erred in holding that appellant's case is not covered under any of the exceptions mentioned in Rule 8DD of the Income Tax Rules particularly when the payments were made to the drivers of the truck as agent of the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in confirming the disallowance made by the AO of ₹ 55,050/- on account of handling charges paid to Mr. Balu Malode by invoking provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act particularly when the entire payment was made during the year and no amount was payable as on 31.03.2009. Without prejudice to above, the Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeal)-I, Nashik is not justified in not allowing the basic limit of ₹ 50,000/- for applicability of provisions of section 194C of the Act. 9. Without prejudice to Ground of Appeal No.8 and on the basis of facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeal)-I, Nashik is not justified in confirming the disallowance made by the AO of ₹ 55,050/- on accoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore the CIT(A) was that the said cash payments were made because transporters were located outside Nashik and did not have the bank account in Nashik. He further stated that the cash was required for drivers of the transporters for various expenses such as fuel, payment of tolls and repairs, etc. Another contention raised by the assessee was that all cash payments were genuine and also the TDS was deducted wherever applicable. The CIT(A) noted that the cash payments have been made to various transporters including those located in Nashik. He further commented that the assessee was to make payment on agreed rate for hiring the services of the transporters. The CIT(A) was of the view that providing cash to the drivers / staff of the vehicles ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee was rejected by both the authorities below as the responsibility of the cash expenditure to be incurred on road was of the transporters, for which the transporters are supposed to handover cash to the drivers of the vehicles. The assessee on the other hand, further claimed that the TDS provisions were complied with wherever applicable. In the entirety of the above said facts and circumstances, we find some force in the claim of the assessee. However, in the absence of any details being available before us, we deem it fit to restore the issue back to the file of Assessing Officer to decide as per fact and law. The assessee is directed to file the necessary evidence that the cash was given to the drivers for meeting various expenses and al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 75,000/-, the provisions of section 194C were not attracted. The claim of the assessee was rejected since the figure of ₹ 75,000/- was substituted for ₹ 50,000/- w.e.f. 01.07.2010. The second contention of the assessee that the amount was paid and was not payable on the close of the year, was also rejected. 12. The assessee is in appeal against the aforesaid findings of authorities below. 13. We find no merit in the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in this regard. The year under appeal before us is assessment year 2009-10, under which as per section 194C of the Act, where cash payment is made in various installments aggregating more than ₹ 50,000/-, then the requirement of the Act is to deduct tax at source. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
