TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (5) TMI 252
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... deleting the addition of Rs. 2,62,93,596/-, which was made by the Assessing Officer on account of disallowance of cash discount which the assessee had allowed to the dealers and sub-dealers for promotion of goods and fail to deduct and collect any tax at source on this cash discount in contravention to the provisions of section 40A(ia) of the I.T. Act, 1961. ii) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) has erred in law and in facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 50,000/-, which was made by the Assessing Officer under the provision of section 14A of the I.T. Act. iii) The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) has erred in law and in facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 17,86,788/- made by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r of Income Tax (A) referred to the ITAT decision in assessee's own case in earlier year and deleted the addition. 5. Against the above order the Revenue is in appeal before us. 6. We have heard the rival contentions in light of the material produced and precedent relied upon. It transpires that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the ITAT decision in assessee's own case in I.T.A. No. 2740/Del/2011 vide order dated 19.8.2011. In this Order, the Tribunal has held as under:- "7. We have heard both the sides on the issue and after hearing both the sides, we find that the assessee was selling the goods to its dealers/ sub-dealers at arm's length. These dealers/ sub-dealers were not acting on behalf of the assesse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted that assessee has not disallowed for expenses incurred to earn the said dividend income. Accordingly, a lump-sum addition of Rs. 50,000/- was made to the total income of the assessee. 9. Upon assessee's appeal Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) noted that Assessing Officer has made the disallowance on adhoc basis and he has not given any reason for the same. Accordingly, he deleted the addition. 10. Against the above order the Revenue is in appeal before us. 11. We have heard the rival contentions in light of the material produced. Ld. Counsel of the assessee fairly agreed that Rule 8D is applicable for the concernment assessment year. However, he submitted that under Rule 8D the disallowance will be of Rs. 2500/-. We have care....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Tax (A) held that disallowance in this regard could not be sustained. 14. Against the above order the Revenue is in appeal before us. 15. We have heard the rival contentions in light of the material produced. We find that assessee has submitted additional evidence before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) in this regard. The additions pertained to the confirmation of the dealers regarding having receipts of gold coins. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) has obtained remand report from the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer has not given any adverse comments in this regard. Under the circumstances, in our considered opinion, there is no infirmity in the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A). Accordingly, we uphold t....