9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (5) TMI 476X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e. Prior period expenditure disallowance - CIT(Appeals) has followed the tribunal order in A.Y. 2010-11 whilst holding that the assessee had claimed the impugned expenditure because of the fact that the corresponding bills has been received in the relevant previous year only - HELD THAT:- We decline the Revenue's argument in view of the fact that the assessee's impugned expenditure has crystallized in its relevant previous year as the recipient had issued the correspondingly bill much later. The third substantive ground is also declined therefore. Addition u/s. 40(a)(ia) - CIT(A) deleted the addition u/s. 40(a)(ia) on the ground that it is a mere provision and hence no tax is deductible at source - HELD THAT:- As the imp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... :- 29-4-2021 - S.S. Godara, Member (J) And Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Member (A) For the Appellant : Rojit Majumdar, D.R. For the Respondents : S. Rama Rao ORDER Per Shri S.S. Godara, JM This assessee's appeal for the Asst. Year 2014-15 arises from the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Hyderabad's order dt. 29.02.2016 passed in case No. 084/CR-3/CIT(A)-11/14-15 in the proceedings under Section 143(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. The Revenue's side proposes the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal : 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the A.O. to verify that whethe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wance of cash payment and prior period expenditure disallowance of ₹ 9,10,000; respectively emerges that the CIT(Appeals) has followed the tribunal's order in assessee's case in A.Y. 2008-09 restoring the very issues back to the Assessing Officer for his afresh necessary factual verification. We thus find no merit in the Revenue's instant former grievance as the CIT(Appeals) has followed judicial consistency in issuing necessary verification directions to the Assessing Officer. The Revenue fails in its instant former two substantive grounds therefore. 4. Next comes prior period expenditure disallowance of ₹ 9,10,000 wherein the CIT(Appeals) has followed the tribunal order in A.Y. 2010-11 whilst holding that the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aggrieved party having locus standi to challenge correctness of CIT(Appeals)'s inaction; if any than an action deciding the issue in tax payer's favour. This Revenue's argument is also fails therefore. 7. Mr. Majumdar lastly submitted that the CIT(Appeals) ought to have upheld the impugned 40(a)(ia) disallowance in the case of short deduction of TDS. Hon'ble Kolkata high court in DCIT Vs. S.K. Takriwal 361 ITR 432 (Cal) holds that sec. 40(a)(ia) does not apply its case involving short deduction of TDS. We thus uphold the CIT(Appeals)'s action deleting the impugned disallowance on this last count as well. 7.1. No other ground has been pressed before us. 8. This Revenue's appeal is dismissed. Order pronoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
