9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (12) TMI 1336X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essed. Now, we shall take the appeals of the department wherein common grounds have been raised, which read as under: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in: - 1. Deleting the additions of ₹ 12,48,132/- ₹ 19,36,312/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of disallowance of selling expenses, for the AYs 2005-06 2006-07, respectively. 2. Deleting the additions of ₹ 6,93,210/- ₹ 3,93,208/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of disallowance of Employee s/Employer s contribution u/s 43B of the I.T. Act, for the AYs 2005-06 2006-07, respectively. 3. Directing the Assessing Officer to allow credit for TDS of ₹ 30,139/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The Assessing Officer allowed only 1/5th of the total expenditure and disallowed the rest of the amounts i.e. ₹ 12,48,132/- ₹ 19,36,312/-, respectively. We find that similar type of disallowances were also made in earlier years and in those years, the first appellate authority deleted the additions and the decision of the ld. CIT(A) was confirmed by this Tribunal vide order dated 15.5.2009 (supra) wherein vide para 3 (pages 2 to 5) of the order deliberated upon the issue and has also considered identical claims in Assessment Years 1995-96, 1999-00 and 2000-01 wherein no disallowance was made by the Assessing Officer. In view of the factual finding contained in the impugned order, and the order from the Tribunal (supra), we fin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e case of the assessee. These pronouncements have already been dealt with in the impugned order. In view of these facts, the stand of the ld. CIT(A) is affirmed and ground no.2 in both the appeals of revenue is dismissed. 5. The last ground pertains to allow credit for TDS of ₹ 46,247/- and ₹ 30,139/-. The stand of the revenue is that no opportunity was provided to the Assessing Officer to make verification. The ld. Sr. DR advanced his arguments which are identical to ground raised whereas through ld. Counsel for the assessee defended the impugned order. After hearing the rival contentions, there is a factual finding in the impugned order that the necessary details were furnished by the assessee along with returns enclosin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
