TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (8) TMI 1357
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../2015. ITA No. 199/PNJ/2015 is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of CIT(A), Panaji-1 in ITA No. 04/MRG/13-14 dt. 25.2.2015 for the A.Y 2010-11 and CO No. 26/PNJ/2015 is the cross objection filed by the Assessee in the Revenue's appeal being ITA No. 199/PNJ/2015. ITA No. 200/PNJ/2015 is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of CIT(A), Panaji-1 in ITA No. 242/MRG/1314 dt. 25.2.2015 for the A.Y 2011-12 and CO No. 27/PNJ/2015 is the cross objection filed by the Assessee in the Revenue's appeal being ITA No. 200/PNJ/2015. 2. As all these appeals relate to the same Assessee, they are disposed off by this common order. Shri V. Narayanaswamy, CA represented on behalf of the Assessee and Shri K.M. Mahesh, ld. DR represente....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly, the ld. AR submitted that Vasco Sports Club and 'Cause of our joy' have specifically given letters confirming that the said payments did not involve any advertisement in any souvenir or in any other manner. The said sponsorship amount was spent exclusively for the cause of development of sports in the city. It was the further submission by the ld. AR that the provisions of Sec. 194C of the Act had been amended w.e.f. 1.10.2009 relevant for the A.Y 2010-11 wherein TDS was liable to be made on advertisements. It was the submission that the assessment year under appeal was 2008-09 and even on this ground the provisions of Sec. 40(a)(ia) could not be invoked. It was the submission that the order of the ld. CIT(A) was liable to be upheld. 6....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of speed money by the assessee and assessee had not produced any evidence regarding payment of speed money during the course of scrutiny proceedings and hence the above decision is not applicable to the facts of the assessee's case. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that the burden of proof is on assessee to identify parties alongwith evidence of payment as Labour charges as held by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs. S. G. Exports (P & H) 336 ITR 2. 3. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that it is the duty of the assessee to prove the payment when the ITO/AO doubts the genuineness thereof as held by the Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Chandravilas Hotel- 164 ITR 102 and Delhi High Court in th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt opposed to public policy as the dock workers were not government employees. For this purpose, the ld. CIT(A) placed reliance on the decision of the coordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of M/s. APL(India) Ltd. reported in 97 TTJ 187 (Bom.). It was the submission that the Assessee having not proved the nature of the expenditure and the identity of the persons to whom the payments have been made, the order of the ld. CIT(A) was liable to be reversed. 10. In reply, the ld. AR drew our attention to the letter dt. 8.11.2013 filed by the Assessee before the assessing authorities wherein it was submitted that the payment of Rs. 68,71,190/- for the A.Y 2010-11 and Rs. 77,97,620/- for the A.Y 2011-12 were, in fact, payment of incentive a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2010. The tonnage is about 44817 and the amount claimed as per the list is Rs. 1,97,220/-. The cash voucher is dt. 22.11.2010. How this cash voucher tallies with the said ship which has been loaded has not been shown. One of the vouchers is for an amount of Rs. 13,460/- and the other is for Rs. 4,230/-. As per the list provided in the paper book in respect of the said M.V. Guodian 9 there is no claim for this amount of Rs. 13,460/- or Rs. 4,230/-. Thus, though the cash payment voucher specifies the person's name but does not contain the address or contact number or any other details. The payment vouchers specifies that the payment is towards disbursement for speeding up loading of a particular ship but the dates do not tally nor does the am....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oney to the workers at the port cannot be treated as an illegal payment and consequently, the explanation to Sec. 37(1) would not apply. However, it is for the Assessee to prove that the said money has been paid to the workers of the port. Just by saying that the payments have been made to the workers in the port does not substantiate the claim. It should be supported with some documentary evidences. The port area is a secured area. The workers there would have names and would be given identification cards. ID numbers would atleast be available. Even these have not been provided by the Assessee. In these circumstances, as the Assessee has not been able to prove the basic fact that the expenditure was incurred for the purpose of the business....