9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (8) TMI 1065X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd on facts in deleting the disallowance u/s 4OA(3) of ₹ 1,46,776/- (2) The learned CIT(A)-I, Rajkot, has erred In law and on facts in deleting the disallowance u/s 40a(ia) of ₹ 5,26,384/-. (3) The learned CIT(A)-I, Rajkot, has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance made u/s 40a(ia) of ₹ 40,94,923/-. (4) The learned CIT(A)-I, Rajkot, has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance made u/s 40a(ia) of ₹ 45,53,398/-. (5) The learned CIT(A)-I, Rajkot, has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition on account of suppression of receipt of ₹ 39,77,057/-. (6) The learned CIT(A)-I, Rajkot, has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance ou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts and circumstances of the case, Rule 6DD(j) is applicable. In fact, Rule 6DD(g) is applicable as per which if the payments are made in a village or in a town and on the date of such payment, the village or town is not served by any Bank, and such receiver/payer is the person who ordinary resides there or is carrying on any business in any of such village or town then no disallowance is called for u/s 40A(3). In our considered opinion, the amount of payment on account of purchase of petrol /diesel is covered by this Clause 6DD (g) and hence, on this account also, we do not find any reason to interfere in the order of the ld. CIT(A). Ground No.1 is rejected. 7. Regarding Ground No.2, we find that this issue is decided by the ld. CIT(A) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ub-contractor. The ld. CIT(A) has given clear finding that there is no basis for this allegation of the AO. He has given finding that these payments were made to several types of sub-contractors such as subletting work, labour work, construction canal work etc. The ld. DR could not controvert this finding of the ld. CIT(A) on this issue and we find no reason to interfere in the order of the ld. CIT(A). 10. Regarding Ground No.5, we find that the CIT(A) has dealt with this issue at paragraph 4(c) at page 15 of his order and for the sake of ready reference, the same is reproduce below: (c) I have studied this issue carefully. There has been no comment on this item in the remand report. The appellant's stand was that the said a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... presented deposits and it was subsequently returned back by the contractor and if the AO had any doubt, he should have make verification from the concerned party but no such verification was made by the AO either at the assessment stage or at remand proceedings. Before us also the ld. DR could not controvert this finding of the ld. CIT(A) on this issue. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere in the order of the ld. CIT(A). This ground is rejected. 12. Regarding Ground No.6, we find that the AO made disallowance of ₹ 3,00,000/- out of some expenses because some irregularity were noticed by the AO. The ld. CIT(A) has reduced the disallowance to ₹ 50,000/- and deleted the balance disallowance of ₹ 2,50,000/-. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
