TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (7) TMI 359
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) has erred in deleting addition of Rs. 51,22,350/- on account of sundry creditors and Expenses Payable without appreciating the facts that the assessee has adopted cash system of accounting for receipts and sub commission and other expenses were accounted on mercantile basis whereas, hybrid system of accounting is not permissible as per Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting addition of Rs. 10,99,132/- u/s 40(a)(ia) without appreciating the facts that the assessee has not deducted TDS on such payments covered u/s 194C. 3. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting addition of Rs. 12,84,820/- on account of capital gains. 4. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in restricting the addition of Rs. 2,93,510/- to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f regular books of accounts which are duly audited is not questionable. The entire basis for rejection of books of account is the Auditor's comment in column 11(a) of the Tax Audit Report in Form 3CD of the Income Tax Rules. I have perused the Tax Audit Report in Form 3CD and find merit in the appellant's submission that the AO has not only appreciated the entire comments in column 11(a) but also relevant and overlapping comments in columns 11(b), 11(c) and 11(d) of the Tax Audit Report in Form 3CD. The Auditor's comment in column 11(a) of the Tax Audit Report in Form 3CD reads as under: "Generally cash system of accountancy had been adopted for commission receipts. However sub-commission and other expenses have been ac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he immediately preceding previous year would have to be allowed. Similarly, the income which has been shown as receivable in the earlier year has to be included in the year under consideration on receipt basis. This exercise would be tax neutral. 7. Drawing support from the judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Standard Triumph Motor Co. Ltd 119 ITR 573 wherein it has been held that the provisions of section 145 are only machinery provisions and it cannot override the charging provision and further drawing support from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Excel Industries Ltd 358 ITR 295 order dated 09.10.2013, the CIT(A) directed the AO to delete the disallowance of Rs. 51,22,350/-.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessee has made payment of Rs. 10,99,132/- to ITC Maurya Hotel, New Delhi. The AO was of the opinion that since the assessee has not deducted tax at source as per section 194C of the Act, he disallowed the payment of Rs. 10,99,132/- u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 12. Before the CIT(A), it was strongly contended that the AO has misconstrued the nature of expenditure in as much as the said expenditure was not within the provisions of section 194C of the Act. 13. After considering the facts and submissions, the CIT(A) observed that the payment to hotel is not covered by the provisions of section 194C of the Act as it is not in the nature of catering. The CIT(A), accordingly, deleted the disallowance of Rs. 10,99,132/-. 14. The ld. DR str....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntion of the assessee was dismissed by the AO who concluded by making addition of Rs. 12,84,820/-. 18. Before the CIT(A, the assessee reiterated what has been stated during the assessment proceedings and contended that the exercise would be Revenue neutral. 19. After considering the facts and submissions, the CIT(A) observed that in case the capital gains in the hands of the assessee is enhanced, then the consequential capital gains in the hands of the co-owner has to be reduced and since both of them are taxed at the highest rate of tax, the exercise would be tax neutral. The CIT(A), accordingly, directed the AO to delete the addition of Rs. 12,84,820/. 14. The ld. DR could not add anything new to what has been done by the AO. ....