9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 982X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee has not filed on record the relevant details for the purpose of payees verification as well. We therefore deem it appropriate in larger interest of justice that the impugned disallowance @ 10% is on little higher side is liable to be restricted to 5% only with a rider that it shall not form a precedent in assessee’s case. Addition u/s. 36(1)(iii) on interest in relation to its interest free advances - Held that:- emerges from assessment order dated 25.03.2013 that the AO has not proved diversion of interest bearing funds as per assessee’s books of account qua the impugned loans. He has rather added notional interest thereupon to the tune of ₹1,63,090/- ₹18,000/-, ₹1,80,000/- and ₹9,65,783/-; respectiv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (ia) - Held that:- Referring to case of CIT VERSUS ANSAL LAND MARK TOWNSHIP (P) LTD. [2015 (9) TMI 79 - DELHI HIGH COURT] held that section 40(a)(ia) does not apply in case the payer assessee is not an assessee in default as per second proviso thereto inserted in the Act by the Finance Act, 2012 with effect from 01.04.2013 r.w.s section 201(1) first proviso. Their lordships have held the above 2nd proviso to section 40(a)(ia) as having retrospective effect being curative in nature. We therefore leave it open for the Assessing Officer to carry out necessary verification exercise in consequential proceedings. The instant substantive is taken as partly accepted. - ITA No.538/Kol/2015 - - - Dated:- 11-7-2018 - Shri S.S.Godara, Judicial Membe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no dispute about the fact that this assessee is a contractor executing general orders as well as acting as a supplier. We do not find any discussion either in assessment or lower appellate order that the impugned expenditure carries inflated claim vis- -vis preceding and succeeding assessment years. Learned Departmental Representative fails to dispute that such cash payments are very common in assessee s line of business involving intensive labour employment. The fact also remains at the same time is that the assessee has not filed on record the relevant details for the purpose of payees verification as well. We therefore deem it appropriate in larger interest of justice that the impugned disallowance @ 10% is on little higher side is liabl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntract. After going through the fact and circumstances of the case, I do not find any merit in the argument of the appellant as the appellant could not prove with the help of supporting document/details that the interest free advances were given for the purpose of business or there was direct nexus between the interest free advances given and business requirement. Since, the interest bearing loans were diverted for non-business purposes by giving interest free advances to the persons with whom no business connection was existed. Under these circumstances, the AO was justified to make disallowance of ₹ 13,26,873/-. 5. Both parties reiterate their respective stands in seeking to delete and confirm the impugned disallowance. There i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing all the said three claims appears to be assessee s failure in producing the relevant documents in the nature of cash purchases, bills, cash books qua its miscellaneous cash purchases as well as absence of any material on record indicating the sales promotion / advertisement expenditure to have been wholly and exclusively incurred for the purpose of its business. All this resulted in three claims to be completely disallowed. Learned Departmental Representative strongly supports both the lower authorities action in this regard. He fails to rebut the fact that such kind of miscellaneous cash purchase or sales promotion / advertisement expenses may be required in assessee s services involving contractor and suppliers activities. There is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h in Samanwaya vs. ACIT (2009) 34 SOT 332(Kol) holds that section 194-J of the Act does not apply in case of payment made to for accounting charges. It draws a distinction between this kind of service and the payment made to chartered accountants. We therefore delete the impugned disallowance qua accounting charges of ₹72,000/- in question. Coming to balance component of the impugned disallowance, the assessee s case is that its payees in question have already been assessed to tax qua the corresponding income in their hands. It quotes hon'ble Delhi high court s decision in CIT vs. Ansal Landmark Township P. Ltd. 377 ITR 635 (Del) upholding this tribunal s decision in Rajiv Kumar Agarwal vs. JCIT in ITA No.338/Agra/2013 dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
