Appellant's Grounds Dismissed, TDS Disallowance Upheld, Depreciation Claims Denied

The appellant's challenge to the validity of notices issued under sections 148 and 143(2) was dismissed as they chose not to press these grounds. The disallowance of TDS under section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction on audit fees was upheld. The claim for higher depreciation on crates was denied, and the lower depreciation rate was affirmed. Regarding the addition on cash purchases of old bottles, the Tribunal reduced the disallowance percentage and remitted the issue for further assessment, partially allowing the appeal for statistical purposes.

---

---

Issues:
1. Validity of notice u/s.148 and assessment order.
2. Validity of notice u/s.143(2) and limitation.
3. Disallowance of TDS under sec.40(a)(ia).
4. Allowability of depreciation on crates.
5. Addition on cash purchases of old used bottles.

Analysis:
1. The first issue raised was regarding the notice u/s.148 being against the provisions of the Act and the assessment order being opposed to law. The appellant decided not to press this ground, and it was dismissed accordingly.

2. The next issue was the validity of the notice u/s.143(2) and its limitation, which the appellant did not press either. The grounds related to notices u/s.142 & 143(2) were also not pressed and dismissed.

3. The disallowance of TDS under sec.40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS on audit fee was justified as per the Act, and the ground was dismissed.

4. The question of allowing depreciation at 15% instead of the claimed 50% on crates was analyzed. The lower authorities were deemed correct in restricting depreciation at 15% based on the specific provisions, and the ground was dismissed.

5. Lastly, the addition on cash purchases of old used bottles was discussed. The Assessing Officer disallowed 25% of cash purchases, which was reduced to 20% by the CIT(A). The Tribunal directed the AO to consider the GP and NP of earlier years and sustained the disallowance at 5% of cash purchases if the rates were lower in the previous years. The issue was remitted to the AO for further consideration, and the appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes.

This comprehensive analysis covers all the issues raised in the judgment, detailing the arguments presented and the Tribunal's decisions on each matter.

---