9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 1531X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ect to packaging expenses - The record shows that the respondent/assessee took the stand that the expenses towards packaging were incurred in cash. According to the respondent/assessee, it is in the business of selling electronic goods and uses packaging materials consisting of wooden boxes, tin patti (to tie up the wooden boxes from all sides) and soft materials to be put inside the wooden boxes to preserve the goods that are packed from damage during the transportation. It is the respondent/assessee s case that these wooden packages are sourced generally from persons, available in the market, who do not conduct an organized business. It was the assessee s stand that the payments were not made to another contractor or sub-contractor, as wr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . This conclusion of CIT(A) has been sustained by the Tribunal. 5. The second issue which arises for consideration, is whether the CIT(A) was correct in its approach in reducing the disallowance of Rs.95,75,917/- made by the AO, with respect to packaging expenses to Rs.6 lakhs. Once again, this conclusion arrived at by the CIT(A) has been affirmed by the Tribunal. Insofar as the second issue is concerned, the CIT(A) has made, inter alia, the following observations: ...As against the above the AO did not come up with any contrary evidence, when the onus shifted on him, to demonstrate that the statements and the bills and vouchers produced by the appellant were bogus and not in consonance with the evidence unearthed by him like the agreements ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... all sides) and soft materials to be put inside the wooden boxes to preserve the goods that are packed from damage during the transportation. It is the respondent/assessee s case that these wooden packages are sourced generally from persons, available in the market, who do not conduct an organized business. 5.2 In other words, it was the respondent/assessee s stand that the payments were not made to another contractor or sub-contractor, as wrongly construed by the AO. Therefore, the respondent/assessee had not deducted tax at source with regard to the payments made for purchasing packaging materials. 6. This view, as noticed above, has been accepted by the CIT(A), as according to him, there was no material available to show that the bills an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
