9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 79X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s in the appellant company. Therefore writing or entering the transaction in those books is entirely within the hands of the appellant. The evidence is compelling that the land deal was actually done by the appellant and the on money was also paid by the appellant and only the name of M/s SMV agencies was placed. Therefore addition confirmed - Decided against assessee Addition u/s 40(a)(ia) - Non deduction of TDS - CIT(A) correctly confirmed the addition made by the AO observing that these are long term leases and contracts on which TDS was to be deducted and the assessee agreed to the disallowance during the course of assessment proceedings. Addition on account of deferred market expenses - AO found that the assessee had claimed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntries, we find that this appeal was posted for hearing on umpteen number of occasions from 05/02/2014 till the last hearing i.e. 28/11/2019 as many as 25 times adjournments, particularly, adjournments took place on the request or there was no compliance from the assessee on the dates fixed for hearing. 2.2 Moreover, as per M.A. No. 03/Hyd/2018, vide its order dated 22/01/2018, the Tribunal recalled the order and posted for hearing on 10/04/2018, but, there was no compliance from the assessee and thereafter, it was adjourned on three occasions. 2.2 Since there is no evidence to support the reasons for seeking adjournment this time, we reject the adjournment letter and proceed to decide the appeal on merits. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s III, Hyderabad has erred to appreciate the facts of treating ₹ 43,73,124/- paid to Market Sales Staff as compensation relating to business as expenses. 4. An amount of ₹ 2,24,795/- towards provident fund ( employer contribution ₹ 1,08,237/- employees contribution ₹ 1,16,558/- ) and ₹ 2,69,319/- towards E.S.I.C., ( employer contribution ₹ 1,86,135/- employees contribution ₹ 83,184/- ) payments made during the year includes both employer and employees contributions. Both these amounts needs to be allowed as a business expenditure. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeals III, Hyderabad, has allowed only employers contribution and not employees contribution. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of sale. Statements of Sri Sanjay Kaul CEO and Sri Y. Bhaskara Rao, GM(F), were also recorded and it was further confirmed that the documents contained the actual transaction i.e. both the cheque part as well as the cash part. The AO after examining the issue elaborately held as under: 4.3 In this connection it may be mentioned here that Sri Sanjay Kaul, C.E.O. of the assessee was the authorized signatory to the transactions of MIs. SMV Agencies (P) Ltd, Delhi, a sister concern of the assessee company, who was available at Hyderabad at the time of survey proceedings. Sri Sanjay Kaul, in his statement Dt. 10.02.2006 had stated that the property in question was purchased by MIs. SMV Agencies (P) Ltd. Delhi. He further state ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al before the CIT(A), the CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the AO by observing as under: 4.4 From the above, it is very clear that the land deal in question was made by the appellant. Mis SMV agencies is also a company in the same group and the entire management is made by the aforementioned two persons. There is no doubt that a substantial amount of on money was paid and these amounts are clearly written in cash in the papers referred to supra. Books of accounts and other documents of Mis SMV agencies are also prepared by the aforementioned persons and their subordinates in the appellant company. Therefore writing or entering the transaction in those books is entirely within the hands of the appellant. The evidence is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he AO held that these were not business expenses. 8.1 On appeal, the CIT(A) following the decision of the ITAT in assessee s own case for AY 2003-04, confirmed the addition made by the AO, as the ITAT has confirmed the similar disallowance in AY 2003-04. 9. As regards ground No. 4 relating to disallowance of amount of ₹ 2,24,795/- towards PF and ₹ 2,69,3219/- towards ESIC, the assessee stated that the entire amounts should not be disallowed because the contributions of employers out of the above amounts are allowable deductions. The CIT(A), accordingly, directed the AO to quantify any contributions of the employers in the aforementioned amounts and the same are to be allowed as deductions as per law ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
