9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 554X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and has paid the rent through account payee cheque and permanent account numbers of all the three parties are duly submitted, we find no reason to doubt the genuineness of the said claim. Therefore, the disallowance at Rs. 3,30,000/- is deleted. Hence ground no. 1 [1(a) 1(b)] raised by the assessee is allowed. Disallowance of technical service charges - said amount was paid to Bhavishya International towards the consultancy charges from April, 2014 to March, 2015 but the contents of the bill were not clear as to whether they pertain to the year under consideration - HELD THAT:- The issue needs to be restored to the file of ld. AO for necessary verification and the assessee is directed to file all the relevant details including bank statement and the nature of consultancy services taken from M/s. Bhavishya International and whether the same can be allowed as a business expenditure. Needless to mention that proper opportunity of being heard should be provided to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and file necessary documents, if considered necessary, in support of its grounds of appeal and should not take adjournment, unless otherwise required for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AY ) 2015-16 is directed against the order passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act ) by ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-23, Kolkata [in short ld. CIT(A) ] dated 22.07.2019 which is arising out of the assessment order framed u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 28.12.2017. 2. The assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal raising the following grounds: 1. (a) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not adjudicating rent payment of Rs. 3,30,000/- to parties by banking mode out of total disallowance of Rs. 6,97,500/-. (b) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not mentioning Rs. 3,67,500/- (being balance of disallowed rent of Rs. 6,97,500/-) though agreed and actually allowed by him in his order. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance of 48,92,421/- on account of technical service charges. 3. (a) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 3,51,116/- towards car repair charges under the head Repairs Services Charges a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eged bogus claim of rent and remaining Rs. 3,67,500/- being disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act for non-deduction of tax on rent paid at Rs. 12,25,000/-. We find that when the matter travelled before ld. CIT(A), he erred in considering the correct figures of rent disallowance. He ought to have dealt with the issue of disallowances of rent at Rs. 3,30,000/- Rs. 3,67,500/- separately but in the finding, he has deleted the disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act but wrongly mentioned Rs. 3,30,000/- which ought to have been correctly mentioned at Rs. 3,67,500/-. Therefore, so far as the disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act is concerned, the same already stands deleted by ld. CIT(A). 9.1. As regards the disallowance of Rs. 3,30,000/- is concerned the assessee has claimed that the same was paid through banking channel and included payment of Rs. 1,54,000/- paid to Mrs. Sangeeta Bhartia, Rs. 22,500/- to Mrs. M. Mallickavalli, Rs. 1,42,200/- to Smt. G. Nookaratnam. Necessary evidences have also been filed in the paper book in support of this claim. Though ld. CIT(A) has not dealt with this issue, however looking to the fact that the assessee being a private limited company of which b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m of Rs. 3,42,000/- on account of statutory audit fees for the FY 2014-15. Ld. AO treated the said sum as provision and disallowed the same. Even ld. CIT(A) could not appreciate the fact that as per the mercantile system of accounting, the assessee has rightly claimed the statutory Audit fees as expenditure for the year to which it pertains. The alleged statutory audit fees was for the FY 2014-15 i.e. AY 2015-16 for which the audit work is to be carried out from the close of the year till the finalization of the balance sheet and profit loss account. In our considered view such claim was rightly made by the assessee. Therefore, finding of ld. CIT(A) is set aside and disallowance of statutory audit fees of Rs. 3,42,000/- made by ld. AO is deleted. In the result, ground no. 4 raised by assessee is allowed. Ground No. 5 : 12. Ground no. 5 relates to disallowance of business promotion expenses at Rs. 7,48,970/- which was made by ld. AO against the total business promotion expenditure claimed at Rs. 14,47,949/-. Before both the lower authorities, assessee failed to furnish the documents. Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that the alleged disallowance is 50% ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
