TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (1) TMI 849
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the assessee's appeal are accordingly dismissed as not pressed. 3. The issue involved in ground no 3 relates to the disallowance of Rs, 15,69,950/- made by the A.O. and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) on account of sales promotion and advertisement expenses by treating the same as unproved / bogus. 4. The assessee in the present case is a partnership firm which is engaged in the business of trading in electronic goods. The return of income for the year under consideration was filed by it on 27.09.2008 declaring a total income of Rs. 1,31,440/-. In the said return, deduction was claimed by the assessee on account of payments of Rs. 11,25,000/- and Rs. 4,44,950/- made to M/s. Latest Publicity House towards hoarding charges and gift article....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the claim of the assessee on this count was bogus/unverifiable and the deduction claimed by the assessee amounting to Rs. 15,69,950/- on account of advertisement and sales promotion expenses was disallowed by him in the assessment under section 143(3) vide an order dated 2nd December, 2010. 5. Against the order of the A.O. passed under section 143(3), an appeal was preferred by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) and the submissions made before the Assessing Officer on this issue were reiterated on behalf of the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A). Attention of the Ld. CIT(A) was drawn by the assessee to the documentary evidence already filed before the A.O. in the form of bills of M/s. Latest Publicity House for hoarding charges, income tax ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....O. giving permanent account number of the said party as well as other income tax particulars including the copy of acknowledgement of IT return for the year under consideration. Having regard to this documentary evidence placed on record, I find merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the assessee that the claim of the assessee for deduction of at least the hoarding charges of Rs. 11,25,000/- paid to M/s. Latest Publicity House was duly supported and substantiated by the relevant documentary evidence and the authorities below were not justified in disallowing the same merely on the ground that the same was not verifiable in the absence of correct address of the said party given by the assessee. In my opinion, when the permanent ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd computer consultancy. It was also submitted that the said persons were not professionals and therefore, tax at source was not required to be deducted from the payments made to them as per section 194J. It was further submitted that there was no contract entered into by the assessee with the said persons and therefore, the provisions of section 194C were not applicable. These submissions of the assessee were not found acceptable by the A.O. According to him, the amount in question having been paid by the assessee at the rate fixed on monthly basis, there was oral contract between the assessee and the said persons and the amount in question having been paid to them for contractual work, the assessee was required to deduct tax at source as ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lding the same, I dismiss ground no 4 of the assessee's appeal. 10. The issue involved in ground no 5 relates to the disallowance of Rs. 2,68,689/- made by the A.O. of installation and delivery expenses which is sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) to the extent of 50%. 11. In the P & L A/c, a sum of Rs. 2,68,689/- was debited by the assessee on account of installation and delivery expenses. On verification of the said expenses, it was found by the A.O. that a sum of Rs. 1,000/- was paid by the assessee for matador hire charges towards each trip. Although the assessee produced vouchers in support of its claim for installation and delivery charges, the A.O. found that the address of the owners as well as the registration numbers of the vehicles....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gard to all the facts of the case including especially the nature of assessee's business as well as the quantum of expenditure claimed, it would be fair and reasonable to make a disallowance of 50% out of installation and delivery charges. I accordingly modify the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue and restrict the disallowance out of installation and delivery charges to 25%. Ground no 5 is thus partly allowed. 13. As regards the issues involved in ground no 6 relating to disallowance under section 40A(3) amounting to Rs. 34,992/-, car expenses amounting to Rs. 27,393/- and telephone expenses of Rs. 8,700/-, learned counsel for the assessee at the time of hearing before us has not raised any material contention to support and....