TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (12) TMI 301
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s enumerated below:- 1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.47,56,655/- being surveyor fee paid to ABS group of companies on which TDS was not deducted for which A.O. had rightly invoked the provisions of Sec. 40(a)(ia). 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 44,61,705/- made by the A.O. by disallowing expenses U/s.37(1) as the assessee could not prove the genuiness of the transactions. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 23,73,681/- which was shown as payable to the creditors viz: ABS group of companies towards inspection services which were non verifiable and unconfirmed. 4. For these and other g....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ddition of an amount of Rs. 2,373,681, payable to ABS Group Companies towards inspection services under section 41(1), since this amount has already been included in the disallowance under section 37(1) of Rs. 4,461,705. The respondents pray that the AO be suitably directed in this regard. The respondents crave leave to add, to amend alter, vary, omit or substitute the above ground of cross objection or add a new ground or grounds at any time before or at the time of hearing, as they may be advised. 2. Assessee-company, engaged in the business of Inspection and Certification Work, filed its E-Return of income on 01-11-2006 declaring total income at Rs. 7.45 Lakhs. Assessing Officer (AO) c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 40A(2)(b) of the Act, that the assessee did not furnish the nature of service availed/basis of determination of amount payable/reasonableness of amount paid in comparison to market rates or arms length prices, that it had not maintained the relevant report for transactions provided u/s. 40A(2)(b) of the Act, that the assessee had not provided any evidence to prove that the expenses were relatable to conduct the business within the meaning of Section 37 of the Act. So the entire expenditure; amounting to Rs. 44.61 Lakhs claimed to have been made to ABS Group concerns under the head 'Surveyor Fee' was dis-allowed by him by invoking the provisions of Section 37(1) of the Act. AO also found that in the Books of Accounts, assessee-company had s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....un-called for and hence liable to be deleted. Dealing with the addition amounting to Rs. 44.61 Lakhs made by the AO u/s. 37(1) of the Act, he held that while making the dis-allowance, AO had completely missed the fact that the amount in consideration was already dis-allowed for non-deduction of TDS, that AO himself had mentioned the justification of the expenses incurred by the assessee-company, that AO had totally missed the linkage between the expenses incurred and nature of activities carried out by the assessee-company. Finally, he deleted the dis-allowance made by the AO u/s. 37(1) of the Act. 3.2 With regard to non-deducting TDS and invoking of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, FAA held that issue on deductibili....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o deduct Tax at Source. Deciding the Ground Nos. 2, 3 & 4 in favour of the assessee-company, he deleted the addition/dis-allowance made by the AO. 4. Before us, Departmental Representative (DR) admitted that AO has added the same amounts on different accounts as mentioned by the FAA, that there was some mistake on the part of the AO to add the same amounts on three accounts. She submitted that FAA had not verified the services rendered by the group of companies, that FAA had decided the issue relying upon the orders of NQA Quality Systems Registrar Ltd., and Intertek Testing Services India (P.) Ltd., (supra), that the facts of the case under consideration were different of those cases, that assessee had not produced any contract/agreement ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....807(Delhi] delivered by the High Court of Delhi, De Beers India Minerals P. Ltd., [21 Taxmann.com 214 (Kar)] delivered by High Court of Karnataka, NQA Quality Systems Registrar Ltd., [2 SOT 249 (Delhi)] (supra) AAR Nos. 886 to 911, 913 to924, 927, 929 and 930 of 2010 in the case of XYZ delivered by AAR on 19-03-2012 6. After hearing the rival submissions and perusing the material available on record, we are of the opinion that the mater needs further verification. The taxability of the amount-in-question has not been properly examined by the AO. FAA has also not dealt the subject in proper perspective. We agree with the FAA that AO had made a mistake in adding the same amount on three different accounts while determining the tax liability o....