TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (12) TMI 243
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ision of Section 40(a)(ia), any claim of expenditure falling under the ambit of TDS is allowable only after TDS at appropriate rates has been made. 2. In doing so, learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II, Kanpur has not appreciated the fact that during the assessment proceeding the assessee himself has admitted that no deduction of tax was made by him before making payment on account of freight. 3. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II, Kanpur has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.10,18,825/- after considering the additional evidences during the course of appellate proceedings. Also, no proper opportunity has been allowed to the Assessing Officer to examine these evidences as pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(hereinafter called in short "the Act") with regard to payment of freight amounting to Rs.10,18,825. 3. The facts in brief borne out from the record are that during the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer has observed that out of total amount debited under the head "freight and cartage", a sum of Rs.10,18,825 has been paid to five persons exceeding the prescribed limit of Rs.50,000 on which no tax has been deducted at source. According to the Assessing Officer, since no tax has been deducted at source, the said expenditure is not allowable. He accordingly made disallowance of the same after invoking provisions of section 40 (a)(ia) of the Act. 4. The assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) with the submi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssing Officer was not right in invoking the provisions of section 40 (a)(ia) of the Act. 6. Now the Revenue has preferred an appeal before the Tribunal with the submission that the assessee has not placed challan for deposit of Rs.25,398 before the Assessing Officer. Since the assessee has failed to produce evidence with regard to the deposit of TDS, the Assessing Officer has rightly disallowed the claim of the assessee. 7. The ld. counsel for the assessee, besides placing heavy reliance upon the order of the ld. CIT(A), has contended that the challan for deposit of Rs.25,398 was produced before the ld. CIT(A) and he has verified the factum of deposit. The ld. counsel for the assessee has also placed reliance upon the order of the Spe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s deleted the addition after having observed that lifting charges are more or less fixed at Rs.160 per M.T or Rs.180 per M.T (which has been paid for lifting of coils purchased from TISCO/SAIL). The ld. CIT(A) has further observed that the Assessing Officer should have rather verified if such quantities of steel indeed lifted by the assessee during the year, which has not been done by him. 11. Before us, the ld. D.R. could not point out any specific defect in the claim of the assessee. He has simply relied upon the order of the Assessing Officer. 12. On perusal of record, we find that the Assessing Officer has made ad-hoc disallowance of Rs.25,000 without identifying a particular expenditure which is not supported by any bill/voucher.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., a sum of Rs.3,43,513 has been debited towards withdrawals. His personal balance sheet is different than the balance sheet of the business enterprise and in his personal balance sheet there is no borrowing at all and the entire investments have been made from his capital. Therefore, no part of borrowed fund has been utilized for tax free income. It was also contended that Rule 8D came into force w.e.f. 24.3.2008 relevant to the assessment year 2009-10, therefore, the disallowance cannot be computed in accordance with Rule 8D. 16. Having convinced with the explanation of the assessee, the ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition after having observed that since the appellant had sufficient capital and also the fact that current year's investment ....