TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (6) TMI 457
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ring a total income of Rs. 4,26,354. A survey under section 133A was carried out in the case of the assessee. Subsequent to search, the case of the assessee was taken-up by the A.O. for scrutiny. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was noticed by the A.O. that the assessee has paid consultancy charges to various Doctors amounting to Rs. 75,800. According to the A.O., assessee was liable to deduct tax at source from the payment of such consultancy charges made to various Doctors as per the provisions of section 194J of the Act and since no such tax was deducted by the assessee, he disallowed the consultancy charges of Rs. 75,800 claimed by the assessee by invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia). 3.1. As found during the course of survey, the hospital building was being constructed by the assessee and in this connection, a sum of Rs. 4 lakhs was paid by the assessee to her husband Mr. R. Srinivas. According to the A.O., this payment made by the assessee was in the nature of payment to contractor and tax at source therefore was liable to be deducted by the assessee. In this connection, the explanation offered by the assessee that the amount of Rs. 4 lakhs was paid to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Shipping and Shamshabad, R.R. Dist., Transports vs. ACIT in ITA.No.477/Viz/2008 and in view of the fact that this amount does not represent the expenditure of the appellant, the addition made of Rs. 75,800 is directed to be deleted." "The learned A.R. brought to my notice that the amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- was paid to the appellant's husband Sri R. Srinivas; that Sri Srinivas is an Engineer and an Architect and is associated with construction activity of the hospital building and that the amount was paid to him for undertaking the construction activity of the hospital building on behalf of the appellant. The A.O. is of the view that disallowance can be made as the amount paid represents the other expenditure. I find that the amount so paid is not debited to the profit and loss account. The amount does not represent the amount paid towards contract and, therefore, the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) have no application. In any case, the addition made by the A.O. was not sustainable and the same is accordingly deleted." 5. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material on record. It is observed that both the amounts in question on account of con....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing was in progress over the relevant years and expenditure of Rs. 10,81,200, Rs. 25,28,800 Rs. 16,83,000 and Rs. 7,23,463 was incurred by him during the previous years relevant to A.Ys. 2004-05, 2005- 06, 2008-09 and 2009-10 respectively. It was submitted that the total expenditure of Rs. 60,16,463 thus was incurred on the construction of building and the same was duly reflected in the books of accounts of the assessee regularly maintained. It was contended that there was thus no basis to say that any unexplained investment was made by the assessee in the construction of hospital building warranting any addition under section 69. The A.O. did not find merit in this contention of the assessee and proceeded to make addition of Rs. 25,38,893 to the total income of the assessee on account of unexplained investment allegedly made by the assessee in the construction of hospital building. 7. The addition made by the A.O. under section 69 on account of unexplained investment allegedly made by the assessee in the construction of hospital building was challenged by the assessee in the appeal filed before the Ld. CIT(A) and after considering the submissions made by the assessee, the remand ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Rs. 31,24,229/- and the cost as per the detailed estimates method would be Rs. 23,44,583/-. In so far as the value fixed by Supdt Engineer, CPWO is concerned, the appellant submitted that there are various inconsistencies in the report and, therefore, cannot be relied on. The rates by the Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration have no relevance for determining the cost and the detailed estimated method can be relied upon when the books are not rejected. The only other remaining method of valuation is adopting the rates of R&B. The Hon'ble ITAT, Chennai Bench in the case of M. Selvaraj vs. ITO reported in 2 SOT 330 held that where the PWD rates are available, the said rates are to be applied instead of CPWD rates. Taking into account, the rates as per the R & B, the total cost during the previous year works out to Rs. 27,05,429/- . The amount for self-supervision in the case of the appellant can be allowed at 15% as the appellant's husband is an Engineer and was looking after the construction work. The cost would work out to Rs. 22,99,700/-. This is adopted as this is almost nearer to the detailed estimates method. After giving credit to the amount already admitted a....