9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 114X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wance u/s 40(ia) on account of non deduction of TDS - CIT(A) has granted relief to the extent of the TDS that was deducted and paid by the Assessee till the filing of return - HELD THAT:- With respect to the amount of Rs. 8,51,234/-, the disallowance of which has been upheld, he has given a finding that no evidence has been placed by assessee to demonstrate that the required TDS was deducted and deposited with the appropriate authorities. Before us, no fallacy in the findings of CIT(A) has been pointed by the Assessee. In such circumstances, we find no reason to interfere with the order of CIT(A) and thus the ground of Assessee is dismissed. Addition u/s 40A(3) - assessee had made payments in cash aggregating to Rs. 6,00,000/- - HELD THAT:- We find that CIT(A) while upholding the addition has noted that Assessee has neither given the details or justification for cash payment before Assessing Officer and him. Before us also, no material has been placed by Assessee to point any fallacy in the finding of CIT(A). We therefore find no reason to interfere with the order of CIT(A) and thus the ground of Assessee dismissed. Disallowance of interest expenses on FBT holding it to be penal in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... est of similar companies in the same/related industry to obtain a competitive edge among its competitors, thus amount of Rs. 62,52,021/- disallowed U/s 36(1)(iii) is contrary to facts of the case and is liable to be deleted. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed addition of Rs. 8,51,234/- U/s. 40(a)(ia) without appreciating the fact that the assessee Company did not deduct the TDS on captioned amount as this expenses represent the reimbursement of out of pocket marketing/sales promotion expenses, which were incurred by the principal/agent in discharging their contractual obligation undertaken with the Assessee Company, thus the addition of Rs. 8,51,234/- is contrary to facts and the applicable provision of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and is liable to be deleted. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed an addition of Rs. 6,00,000/- U/s. 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 merely on the basis that the expenses were incurred in cash without undergoing the facts, supporting, factual evidence held by the assessee in relation to the above expenses. The said addition was made without considering the relevant vouchers and supporting evidence and thus liable to be deleted. 6. That the Ld. CIT(A) without co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ance from the side of assessee nor there is any request for adjournment. Mere filing of an appeal by the assessee before this Tribunal would not be sufficient. It is incumbent upon the assessee to attend the proceedings as and when so fixed. In the present case the details as listed in the preceding para indicates the callous approach of the assessee in not attending the proceedings nor seeking adjournment of hearings. In such a situation and considering the fact that after filing the appeal by assessee in the year 2017, there has been no appearance on its behalf in the past, we proceed to dispose of the appeals ex parte qua the assessee and after hearing the Learned DR. 8. Before us, ld. DR submitted that the effective grounds which require adjudication are Grounds No. 3 to 6. 9. We find that Assessee had filed return of income for Assessment Year 2011-12 on 30.09.2011 declaring total income of Rs. 80,67,320/-. In the assessment framed u/s. 143(3) vide order dated 31.03.2014, the total income was determined at Rs. 2,45,00,458/- by making various disallowances/additions. Aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer, Assessee carried the matter before CIT(A) who granted partial rel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er noted that assessee had paid commission aggregating to Rs. 18,58,588/- and on such payments, Assessee had not deducted TDS under Section 194H of the Act. He therefore, by invoking the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia), disallowed Rs. 18,55,588/-. 15. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, Assessee carried the matter before CIT(A). The CIT(A) vide para 6.2 of the order upheld the addition to the extent of Rs. 8,51,234/- and granted relied to the extent of Rs. 10,07,354/-. 16. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), Assessee is now in appeal. 17. Before us, ld. DR took us through the findings of the CIT(A) and supported his order. 18. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The issue in the present ground is with respect to disallowance under Section 40(ia) on account of non deduction of TDS. We find that CIT(A) has granted relief to the extent of the TDS that was deducted and paid by the Assessee till the filing of return. With respect to the amount of Rs. 8,51,234/-, the disallowance of which has been upheld, he has given a finding that no evidence has been placed by assessee to demonstrate that the required TDS was deducted and deposite ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
