TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (10) TMI 825
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....i qua the assessment year 2010-11 on the grounds inter alia that :- "(1) On the facts and under the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 65,516/- made by the AO holding as capital in nature ignoring the facts that the assessee itself admitted the expenditure incurred on replacement of old furniture. (2) On the facts and under the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.l,05,000/- ignoring the facts of the ease that the assessee has failed to explain the purpose of increasing the working capital over draft facility on which the fees in question paid to the bank. (3) On the facts and under circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s were made were found not existing and the assessee failed to establish the identity of persons from whom the purchases were made by the assessee. (8) In the facts and the circumstances of the case the ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,24,44,143/- made by the AO on account of bogus purchases made by the AO on the basis of letter produced by the assessee without referring the same to the AO for its verification. (9) In the facts and circumstances, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 10,07,441/- out of Rs. 16,43,824/- made by the A.O. on account of consultancy charges on the basis of a letter produced by the assessee without referring to the A.O. for its verification. (10) In the f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') to Jagmohan Garg (HUF) at the address given by the assessee received back unserved and as such, payment of the rent has not been proved. AO further disallowed an amount of Rs. 1,24,44,143/- on the ground that no confirmation has been received from the parties in response to the notice issue u/s 133 (6) of the Act dated 15.01.2013. AO further disallowed an amount of Rs. 16,43,824/- paid to Dr. Shuchi Dingra, Dr. Manish, Dr. Swatantra Mishra and Dr. Seema Jain again for lack of confirmation made by them in compliance to the notices issued u/s 133 (6) of the Act. AO further disallowed an amount of Rs. 7,00,000/- being an amount payable to the sundry creditors on the ground that names of such su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ft facility "is oftenly used to run day-to-day business". Hence, the ld. CIT (A) has rightly deleted the addition of Rs. 1,05,000/- by treating the same as revenue expenditure. So, Ground no.2 is determined against the Revenue. GROUND NO.3 7. Assessee claimed expenditure of Rs. 3,35,780/- incurred on Diwali gifts and sweets given to the outsourced Doctors. Ld. CIT (A) deleted the addition on the ground that she has perused the documents which were also shown to the AO. But the ld. AR has failed to bring on record any such documents to prove the hiring of services of the Doctors nor it is proved on record if the Doctors to whom the gifts are given are on the roll of the assessee or are rendering services since long. No doubt confirmati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ld. CIT (A). AO has made disallowance only on the ground that the assessee was not disclosing any stock and was showing only fictitious losses. When the assessee has proved on record that services of pharmacy and path lab were outsourced and remaining items were brought as and when required, there used to be no stock as consumables on physical verification. So, again, we find no ground to interfere with the findings returned by ld. CIT (A). Hence, ground no.5 is also determined against the Revenue. GROUND NO.6 10. AO disallowed an amount of Rs. 2,52,000/- paid to Jagmohan Garg (HUF) on account of rent paid. Since ld. CIT (A) deleted the addition after verifying the fact that the payment has been made as per Agreement, available at pa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n-speaking one. So, we remand this issue back to the ld. CIT (A) to decide afresh after providing an opportunity of being heard to the parties. Consequently, grounds no.7 & 8 are determined in favour of the Revenue for statistical purposes. GROUND NO.9 12. Ld. CIT (A) deleted the addition of Rs. 16,43,824/- made by the AO on account of payment to various consultant Doctors on the ground that copies of ITR and computation of income was filed before AO and she has also verified the details. On the other hand, when we examine the assessment order, no such documents have been brought before AO nor the concerned Doctors have filed any confirmation despite issuance of the notice u/s 133 (6) of the Act nor the ld. CIT (A) has called upon any....