TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (6) TMI 1168
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aring CO No.124/Ahd/2015 and 148/Ahd/2015 for the Assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12 respectively. 2. First we take appeals of the Revenue. 3. Ground no.1 in both years is common. Grievance of the Revenue is that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting addition of Rs. 35,95,578/- and Rs. 67,30,923/- in the Asstt.Year 2010-11 and 2011-12 respectively. These additions were made by the AO with the aid of section 40A(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. Facts on all vital points are common in both the years. Therefore, for facility of reference we take up facts from the Asstt.Year 2010-11. 5. It emerges out from the record that in the Asstt.Year 2010-11 the assessee has availed loan from 41 persons whereas in the Asstt.Year 2011- 12 it took ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s deleted the disallowance. He placed on record copy of the Tribunal's order in ITA No.239 and 1836/Ahd/2012. On the other hand, the ld.DR relied upon the orders of the AO. 7. We have duly considered rival contentions and gone through the record. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that creditors do fall within the category of specified persons contemplated in section 40A(2)(b) of the Act. Short question before us is, whether payment of interest at the rate of 18% to such persons on the loans availed from them is excessive or not, having regard to the fair market value of such loans. No doubt, the ld.AO took into consideration interest rate at 12%. This is the rate on which banks used to grant small time loans. This rate was also k....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing evidence, and thereafter allowed incidental expenses as well as depreciation. After going through order of the ld.CIT(A), we do not find any reasons to interfere in it. Car was practically owned and possessed by the assessee. It was used for the purpose of assessee's business. Therefore, this ground of appeal is rejected in both the years. 10. Ground no.2 in the Asstt.Year 2010-11. In this ground, Revenue's grievance is that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting addition of Rs. 1,77,730/-. 11. With the assistance of the ld.representatives, we have gone through the record carefully. It emerges out from the record that the assessee has paid a sum of Rs. 1,77,730/- to M/s.Narmada Chem. It failed to deduct TDS on this amount. The ld.AO has ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al, the ld.CIT(A) deleted disallowance. 14. With the assistance of the ld.representatives, we have gone through the record carefully. With regard to the fact that the assessee is engaged in manufacturing activities, the AO has also not disputed. It is also not disputed that the assessee has installed certain electrical items and lab equipments, which according to the assessee eligible for grant of additional deprecation. The AO disallowed the claim only on the ground that these items were not used for manufacturing process. A perusal of the assessee's submission before the ld.AO would indicate that the assessee has purchased electrical items, such as, electrical cables, capacitors and UGVCL (Power supply company) line charges for increase ....