AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (7) TMI 817
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ers are inter-connected and therefore for the sake of brevity, the same are heard analogously and are disposed of by a common judgement. ITA No.2049/Ahd/2012 - AY 2009-10 Assessee's appeal 3. The first ground of instant appeal has been raised by the assessee alleging error committed by the AO in passing order of disallowance u/s.14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") for Rs. 19,65,003/-. 4. The Ld.AR with all his fairness submitted before us that this issue though discussed and detailed submission was made in the statement of facts, inadvertently, the assessee did not raise this particular ground in the statement of grounds of appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and thus prays for reappraisal of the said ground by the Ld.CIT(A). On the other hand, the Ld.DR relies upon the order passed by the Ld.AO. 5. We have gone through the materials available on record including the orders passed by the authorities below. We find merit in the plea of the assessee towards inadvertence for omitting to raise a specific ground for adjudication before CIT(A) despite detailed presentation of facts in 'statement of facts'. In the facts and circumstances of the case,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he depreciation @50% is allowable on all Cars. The ld.AO came to a finding that the assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing HDPE/LDPE plastic bags and the vehicle is not given on hire. The rate claimed by the assessee can only be considered had it been a commercial vehicle and used in the business of hiring and thus 50% of the depreciation was allowed by the AO and excess depreciation to the tune of Rs. 61,286/- was disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee. 9. At the time of hearing of the matter, the Ld.AR with all his fairness submitted before us that this particular issue though discussed and detailed submission was made in the statement of facts, inadvertently, the assessee did not raise this ground in the statement of grounds of appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and thus prays for reappraisal of the said ground by the Ld.CIT(A). On the other hand, the Ld.DR relies upon the order passed by the Ld.AO. We find merit in the plea of the assessee towards inadvertence for omitting to raise a specific ground for adjudication before CIT(A) despite detailed presentation of facts in 'statement of facts'. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we consider it....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....und has been raised by the assessee questioning the correctness of the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) in confirming the disallowance of insurance expenses of Rs. 1,29,248/- when no such disallowance was called for. Factually, the assessee has taken various policies for business purposes. The total claim on that count was of Rs. 2,73,119/-. Upon perusal of the details of policies and the computation of the amount pertains to the next year and the ledger accounts of expenses supplied by the assessee, the AO found that Rs. 1,29,248/- has been computed on the basis of date of policy. The assessee was thereafter asked to justify the claim of entire expenses for the year under consideration. The AO found that since the assessee following the mercantile system of accounting, the expenses pertaining to next year cannot be allowed in the year under consideration and thus such expense of Rs. 1,29,248/- was disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee which was further confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A). 14. It appears that the assessee is following mercantile system of accounting and the assessee was given ample opportunities to substantiate their claim. The issue is not of commercial ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of such expenditure. He thus allowed the ground of appeal. 17. We have heard the Ld. representatives of the parties. We have perused the relevant material available on record. The Ld.DR relied upon the order passed by the AO, whereas the Ld.AR made his submission in support of the order of the Ld.CIT(A). We find that the justification given by the Ld.CIT(A) in deleting the addition made by the Ld.AO to the tune of Rs. 21,00,000/- on commission expenses incurred by the assessee is just and proper in view of the observation made by the judgement cited in this respect passed by the Hon'ble Madras High Court. We, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A). Thus the ground preferred by the Revenue is rejected. 18. The second ground preferred by the Revenue in the instant appeal relates to deletion of addition made by the AO u/s.40A(2)(b) of the Act of Rs. 26,44,150/- on account of excess interest payment. 19. The brief facts leading to this issue is that on the basis of comments made by the auditor that most of the depositors are relatives of partners and provided interest @ 18% p.a., notice has been served upon the assessee to justify transa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessee. Thus, the grounds raised in the Cross Objection are accordingly decided and does not call for separate adjudication. 23. In the result, Assessee's Cross Objection No.213/Ahd/2012 is dismissed as infructuous. ITA No.1835/Ahd/2014 - AY 2010-11 - Assessee's appeal 24. The instant appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 16.05.2014 passed by the CIT(A), Gandhinagar, Ahmedabad for AY 2010-11 arising out of the order dated 22.03.2013 passed by the Jt.CIT, Patan Range, Patan. 25. The first two grounds raised by the assessee questioning the correctness of the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) in restricting disallowance u/s.14A at Rs. 24,39,160/- as against disallowance made by the AO at Rs. 26,36,551/- when no such disallowance is called for. In fact, both the issues No.1 & 2 are inter-related and thus dealt with analogously. 26. While making disallowance u/s.14A r.w.Rule 8D, the Ld.AO observed that in the assessment year i.e. 2009-10 a sum of Rs. 19,65,003/- was disallowed in terms of Sec.14A of the Act against which no appeal preferred by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A). The same point was further raised by the Ld.CIT(A) when the assessee subm....