9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 857X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etainer fee paid in the process of transportation. We therefore do not find any reason to interfere with the order of CIT(A) in allowing the claim does not call for any interference. Tansportation charges disallowed - Held that:- Before us the contention of the revenue is that the truck running expenses and transportation charges are one and the same. We are of the view that in the light of the evidence brought before CIT(A), the contention of the revenue cannot be accepted Addition on increase in the loan amount in the balance sheet of the assessee - Held that:- in the light of the evidence to show that the loan amount was availed from the sister concern, the order of CIT(A) in allowing the claim does not call for any interference. Decided against revenue - ITA No. 580/Kol/2013, C.O.No.55/Kol/2013 - - - Dated:- 11-5-2016 - Shri N. V. Vasudevan, JM And Shri M. Balaganesh, AM For the Department: Shri Rajendra Prasad, JCIT, Sr.DR For the Assessee : Shri S.Jhajharia, FCA ORDER Per N. V. Vasudevan, JM ITA No.580/Kol/2013 is an appeal by the Revenue directed against the order dated 04.01.2013 of CIT(A)-XXXVI, Kolkata, relating to AY 2009-10. The Asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed in the truck running expenses. However while computing the total income AO added the entire sum of ₹ 1,01,82,908/- to the total income of the assessee. However in an order u/s 154 of the Act dated 16.01.2012 this mistake was rectified and the disallowance was restricted to ₹ 10,18,291/-. 5. Before CIT(A) the assessee pointed out that the truck running expenses was incurred in respect of vehicles owned by the assessee which were 28 in number. The assessee pointed out that no expenses in respect of hiring vehicles were included in the truck running expenses. The assessee pointed out that out of total expenses booked under the head truck running expenses, expenses on fuel constituted about 85% to 90% and the remaining sum was wages paid to the drivers and kalasis and truck repairing expenses and other miscellaneous incidental expenses. It was submitted that these are usual and normal expenses. It was argued that no part of the expenses ought to have been disallowed by the AO. CIT(A) accepting the contentions on behalf of the assessee deleted the addition made by AO. 6. The learned DR relied on the order of AO. Before us the learned counsel for the assessee placed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the material available on record and agreement between the Assessee and M/S.Philips India Ltd., we are of the view that the expenditure in question was for the business of the Assessee and the order of CIT(A) on this issue does not call for any interference. Accordingly ground no.2 raised by the revenue is dismissed. 11. As far as ground no.3 raised by the revenue is concerned the facts are that the AO disallowed a sum of ₹ 6,49,275/- which were paid as retainer fee by the assessee. According to the AO the assessee was in the business of transportation and there was no necessity of payment of a retainer fee as assessee used its own vehicle for transportation. 12. Before CIT(A) the assessee pointed out that the payment of retainer fee was payment made to casual labourers engaged in the process of loading and unloading of goods at various places. These were in the nature of wages and are not paid to persons who are in the regular pay roll of the assessee. This was the reason why the nomenclature retainership fees was used while accounting for the aforesaid payment. The real nature of the payment was in the nature of wages and had to be allowed as deduction. The CIT(A) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich increased to ₹ 28,98,340/- as on 31.3.2009. The incremental amount was ₹ 8,54,000/-. The loans advances pertained to 3 (three) parties. In respect of 2 (two) parties the balance as on 31.3.2008 and 31.3.2009 were exactly same without any change. The only loan alc. was with the sister concern M/s TDC Warehousing Corporation and it was interest free. The loan transactions with the sister concern were all by cheque and the same were duly accounted for in the assessee's books. Hence, addition made of ₹ 8,54,000/- u/s. 69 is therefore deleted. 19. The contention of the revenue before us is that the Assessee did not produce the loan documents to substantiate receipt of loan. We are of the view that in the light of the evidence to show that the loan amount was availed from the sister concern, the order of CIT(A) does not call for any interference. Accordingly ground no.5 raised by the revenue is dismissed. 20. In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. C.O.No.55/Kol2013(Assessee s Appeal) 21. The grounds raised by the assessee in the Cross Objection are as follows :- 1. That on the facts and on the circumstances of the case the l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
