9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 420X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he requirement of second proviso to 40(a)(ia) read with first proviso to Section 201(1). This ground stand allowed for statistical purposes. Disallowance on account of mismatch in receipts as reflected by the assessee vis- -vis receipts as reflected in Form No. 26AS - HELD THAT:- AR reiterated that difference arises due to the fact that billing was erroneously done in the name of group concern. The Ld. AR also placed on record reconciliation, Form 26AS and ledger accounts in support of the submissions. Prima-facie, the arguments of Ld. AR has strength. The dispute is a matter of reconciliation only. Therefore, we direct Ld. AO to re-verify the above claim after appreciating the relevant documents as placed on record. If the billing is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Respondents : Usha Gaikwad, Ld. DR ORDER Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Member (A) 1. Aforesaid cross-appeals for Assessment Year (AY) 2011-12 arises out of the order of learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-28, Mumbai [CIT(A)] dated 23/03/2016 in the matter of assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer (AO) u/s. 143(3) on 28/03/2014. 2. The assessee is aggrieved by confirmation of certain disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) and confirmation of disallowance on account of mismatch in receipts as reflected by the assessee vis- -vis receipts as reflected in Form No. 26AS. These two issues are adjudicated first. 3.1. The disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) was made by Ld. AO since the assessee paid professional fees of ₹ 0.93 Lacs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er accounts in support of the submissions. Prima-facie, the arguments of Ld. AR has strength. The dispute is a matter of reconciliation only. Therefore, we direct Ld. AO to re-verify the above claim after appreciating the relevant documents as placed on record. If the billing is done in other name and the same has already been accounted for by the assessee as business receipts, the same could not be added again. This ground as well as the assessee's appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes. Revenue's Appeal 4.1. The revenue is aggrieved by deletion of addition of ₹ 346.61 Lacs as made by Ld. AO u/s. 40A(3). The relevant facts are that the assessee was engaged as clearing agent on behalf of its principal. The ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cy commission earned by the assessee has been credited to its Profit Loss Account. We find that stated expenditure is in the nature of petty labour charges which has been incurred by the assessee on behalf of its principal. Similar issue arose in assessee's case for AY 2007-08 wherein the bench, in para 6 of the order, held that the provisions of Sec. 40A(3) would not be attracted to such payment. There is no new material before us to deviate from the earlier view of the bench. Facts are pari-materia the same in this year. Since Ld. CIT(A) has merely followed the order of Tribunal, no fault could be found in deleting the impugned addition. By confirming the stand of Ld. CIT(A), we dismiss the appeal of the revenue. 5. The assessee& ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
