9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 264X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le are directed to be deleted. Disallowance u/s. 40A(3) - assessee states that date on which payments were made were public holidays and hence the same falls under the exception clause and the same should be allowed - HELD THAT:- Since this is factual aspect we deem it appropriate to remit this issue to the file of AO. AO shall consider the issue afresh and decide the issue only for those payments, which were made on those days that the asses see claimed as bank holidays, is found to be correct and found to be falling under the exception clause. Other payment on the ground of only business exigency, we do not find any infirmity in the orders of the authorities below on this issue. Less credit of TDS, since the matter is going bac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sustaining disallowance out of Telephone Expenses although reduce the disallowance from 20% to 10% of Telephone Expense amounting to Rs. 1,44,436/-. Disallowance is arbitrary and not based on evidences. 4. Disallowance of Rs. 3,41,075/- out of Vehicle maintenance and Depreciation on Vehicle. Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has again erred in law, facts and circumstances of the case by sustaining disallowance out of vehicle maintenance and depreciation expenses although reduce the disallowance from 30% to 15% of vehicle maintenance and depreciation on vehicle expense amounting to Rs. 1,44,436/-. Disallowance is again arbitrary and not based on evidences. 5. Disallowance of Rs. 2,61,200/- u/s. 40A(3) of the IT Act. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed all the additions. 5. Against this order, assessee has filed appeal before the ITAT. We have heard both the parties and perused the record. 6. Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that grounds relating to ad hoc disallowance and depreciation are covered in favour of the assessee by decision of the ITAT in assessee's own case for AY 2011-12 vide order dated 13.03.2019 in ITA No. 5739/Del/2015. 7. Furthermore, regarding disallowance u/s. 40A(3), Ld. counsel of the assessee pleaded that the days on which the impugned payments were made were falling under the exception clause. 8. Per contra, Ld. DR for the Revenue relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 9. We note that the issue of depreciation was considered by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. The Revenue Authorities continuously allowed depreciation on building in earlier Assessment Years 2009-10, 2010-11, 2012-13 2014-15 but specifically change its stand in this particular year as well as in Assessment Year 2013-14 without giving proper reasoning towards the same. Thus, following Rule of Consistency, Ground No. 1 is allowed. 8. As regards Ground No. 2 relating to disallowance of Rs. 3,87,595/- out of depreciation on building pertaining to rental portion of buildings, the Ld. AR submitted that the building is a separate block of asset for depreciation purpose cannot be segregated for the purpose of disallowance of depreciation and hence, the Ld. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the AO for the disallowance, the same was deleted. We find that the aforesaid decision of ITAT fully applies to the present case. It is not the case that the decision of ITAT was reversed by Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court, hence the grounds for disallowance of depreciation and ad hoc disallowance of expenditure on account of telephone and vehicle are directed to be deleted. 11. As regards ground of disallowance u/s. 40A(3), Ld. counsel of the asses see states that date on which payments were made were public holidays and hence the same falls under the exception clause and the same should be allowed. Since this is factual aspect we deem it appropriate to remit this issue to the file of AO. AO shall consider the issue afresh and de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
