9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 877X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .51 crores received by the assessee included the sum of ₹ 1.35 crores belonging to the individual directors. We are of the opinion that the Cit (A) has properly appreciated the contentions of the assessee that the sum of ₹ 1.35 crores does not belong to the assessee, but that it belongs to the individual directors of the company in allowing the assessee’s appeal - Decided in favour of assessee - ITA No. 135/Hyd/2016 - - - Dated:- 19-10-2016 - Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, Judicial Member And Shri S. Rifaur Rahman , Accountant Member For Revenue: Shri A. Sitarama Rao, DR For Assessee: Shri B. Satyanarayana Murty ORDER Per Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, J. M. This is Revenue s appeal for the A.Y 2012-13 against the order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... here was no reply from the assessee, another show cause notice was also issued on 11.03.2015. In response to this show cause notice, the assessee appeared through his representative on 13.7.2015 and promised to furnish the books of account and accordingly produced the same before the AO. 4. On perusal of the material furnished by the assessee, the AO observed certain discrepancies. He observed that the assessee has claimed to have contributed a sum of ₹ 10,17,000 to M/s. Venco Research Breeding Farm Private Limited (Hyderabad Division) for purchase of parent male and female chicks from the said concern and that the party has raised vouchers separately for administrative and contribution charges. Since the above amount is neither ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2 The Learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of ₹ 9,45,000/- made by the invoking provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the I.T Act. 3 The Learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of expenditure u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act, holding that the amounts are not payable as at the end of the year, ignoring that the provisions are applicable in respect of payments made during the year without TDS being made. 4 The Learned CIT(A) erred in relying upon the decision of Hon ble ITAT, Special Bench, Visakhapatnam, in the case of Merylin Shipping Transporting not considering the circular of CBDT in No: 10 /DV /2013 (F.No: 279 /Misc. /M-61 /20 12ITJ dated 16/12/2013. 5 The Learned CIT(A) erred in relying upon th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is the case of the Revenue that the decision of the Special Bench in the case of Merilyin Shipping Transport has been suspended by the Hon'ble High Court of judicature for the State of Telangana A.P. and therefore, the decision ought not to have been followed. However, we find that this decision has been upheld by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs.Vector Shipping Services Ltd and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has dismissed the SLP filed by the Revenue against the said decision in the case of Vector Shipping Services (P) Ltd reported in (2013) 262 CTR (All) 545. Further, the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Janapriya Engineers Syndicate reported in (2015) 54 Taxmann.com 346 (AP T) held that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pment agreement, an amount of ₹ 2.00 crores was returned to SHPL and the balance ₹ 2.51 crores was available with the assessee. It is submitted that SHPL had to return a sum of ₹ 1.35 crores to the Directors as stated above and therefore, out of the sum of ₹ 2.15 crores payable to SHPL, the assessee adjusted the sum of ₹ 1.35 crores towards their dues and the balance of ₹ 1.16 crores was retained by the assessee towards compensation receivable from SHPL for demolishing the existing structures and the same was also reflected in the Depreciation Schedule and the WDV was reduced to that extent. After considering these submissions of the assessee, the CIT (A) has allowed the assessee s appeal and the Revenue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
