TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal Upholds First Appellate Authority Decisions on Expense Disallowance</h1> <h3>Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, 2 (1), Raipur Versus M/s. Mangilal Pagaria</h3> Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, 2 (1), Raipur Versus M/s. Mangilal Pagaria - TMI Issues:1. Disallowance of material expenses2. Disallowance of labour and contingency expensesDisallowance of Material Expenses:The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed Rs.5,00,000 out of material expenses claimed by the assessee, citing lack of proper verification. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) deleted the disallowance, emphasizing that the AO failed to provide any material evidence before making the disallowance. The FAA highlighted that the AO's action lacked justification and proper reasoning, contrary to the provisions of the Act. The Tribunal upheld the FAA's decision, stating that the AO cannot make additions without proper reasons and that the disallowance was unjustified without rejecting the books of account or pointing out specific defects.Disallowance of Labour and Contingency Expenses:The AO disallowed Rs.10,00,000 out of the claimed labour and contingency expenses, alleging lack of complete verifiability. The FAA overturned this disallowance, noting that the assessee maintained proper books of account, which were audited, and the AO failed to identify any defects. The FAA emphasized that no disallowance could be made based on estimation without concrete evidence. The Tribunal supported the FAA's decision, stating that the AO's lump sum disallowance lacked evidentiary support and that tax liability cannot be imposed without positive evidence against the assessee. The Tribunal concluded that the AO's action was unjustified and confirmed the FAA's order.In both instances, the Tribunal ruled against the AO, dismissing the appeal and upholding the decisions of the FAA regarding the disallowance of material and labour/contingency expenses. The judgment highlighted the importance of proper reasoning, evidence, and adherence to legal provisions in making disallowances, emphasizing the need for concrete proof before imposing tax liabilities on the assessee.
TaxTMI 