TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (4) TMI 874
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s of Rs. 10,20,144/- on the ground of nondeduction of tax u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The AO had further disallowed the remuneration/ commission to the extent of Rs. 2,65,884/- paid to two partners out of four partners on the ground of not being reasonable. The appellant preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who confirmed both the disallowances made by the AO. Aggrieved, the appellant is now in appeal before us. 3. In the original grounds taken in the appeal, the appellant had objected to the disallowance of advertisement charges u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The ld. Counsel for the appellant also filed an application for admission of additional grounds objecting to the merits of the disallowance of remuneration paid to the partners u/s 40(b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eved by this order, the appellant is now in appeal before us. 5. We have heard the rival submissions. Before us, the Ld AR argued that let this issue be restored back to the file of the AO to verify the fact of inclusion of the subject mentioned receipts in the income of the payees and once it is done, the assessee should not be fastened with disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act in the light of second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) read with section 201(1) of the Act which although was introduced by the Finance Act 2012 has been held to be retrospective in operation by the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Pr. CIT VsTirupati Construction (GA No. 2146 of 2016) dated 23.8.2016. Hence in the interest of justice a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rs of the appellant-firm besides being partner of another partnership by the name M/s Lal Fashion. Both the firms were engaged in the similar business and that Smt. Angura Devi Agarwal& Smt. BinaAgarwal were active & working partners has not been denied by the Ld. CIT(A) in as much as the remuneration paid to these two ladies was allowed as a business expenditure by the Ld. CIT(A) while disposing the appeal of M/s Lal Fashion. In the circumstances I find that Ld. CIT(A) per se has not disputed or disbelieved the fact that the said two lady partners are working partners and they have working knowledge of the business in which the assessee firm was engaged. I therefore find that there was no material for the authorities below to doubt the cap....