AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (8) TMI 105
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to the extent prejudicial to the appellant is bad in law and liable to be quashed. 2. Disallowance of payment of Accounts writing charges under section 40(a)(ia): 2.1 The learned assessing officer has erred in disallowing accounts writing charges paid amounting to Rs. 48,000 for not deducting TDS under section 194J and the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the same. 2.2 The learned AO and the CIT(A) have erred in not appreciating that the impugned payment was made to a part time employee and hence not liable for TDS. 2.3 Even otherwise, the payments were not liable for TDS under section 194J. 2.4 On facts and circumstances of the case and law applicable, impugned disallowance of Rs. 48,000 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ould be deleted in entirety. 5.1Levy of interest : The ld. AO has erred in levying interest under section 234A, 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In facts and in the circumstances of the case and law applicable, interest under section 234a, 234B and 234D is not leviable. The appellant denies its liability to pay interest under section 234B & 234A .6. 6.1 Prayer:- In view of the above and other grounds to be adduced at the time of hearing, the appellant prays that the order passed by the CIT(A) to the extent prejudicial to the appellant be quashed OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE (I) (a)Disallowance of accounts writing charges amounting to Rs. 48,000 be deleted In the alternative and withou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd No.1 is general in nature and therefore do not require adjudication. 4.3. Ground No.2 is in respect of disallowance made under section 40 a (ia) of the Act. It has been submitted by Ld.AR that assessee debited sum of Rs. 48,000/- towards account writing charges. Ld.AO observed that no TDS was deducted against said sum, and so held that there is violation of section 40 a (ai) of the Act. Assessee submitted that accountant to whom payment was made was part-time employee and there was no liability to deduct any TDS. It was submitted that assessee gave details of accounts to the person who then feeds them into computer. Ld.CIT (A) rejected assessee submissions, as the same was not substantiated with any evidences. At the time of hearin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....F. Ld.AO computed profits earned by HUF in the hands of assessee holding it to be one and the same business. Ld.AR submitted that, HUF is also carrying on same business as Trader in textiles at Mumbai. Ld.AO made addition to the extent of profit earned by HUF in the hands of assessee as both are managed by assessee. 5.2. Ld.DR on the other hand submitted that both proprietary as well as HUF concerns have common address at Hubli and assessee created an impression that HUF is carrying out its activities from Mumbai. He placed reliance upon observation by Ld.AO in respect of total debt balance appearing in HUF account as well as the proprietary concern managed by assessee being the same. He submitted that Ld.AO therefore rightly held it to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s depreciation is claimed in respect of the same. 6.2. On the contrary, Ld.DR submitted that assessing officer has analyse this issue in detail and has come to conclusion that assessee has claimed it is business asset insofar as 50% of the property is concerned and for the remaining 50% of the property has been declared by his son. He thus supported the views of authorities below. We have perused submission advanced by both sides in light of records placed before us. 6.4. It is observed by Ld.AO that flat is jointly owned by assessee and the sun. Ld.AO categorically recorded that same flat has been partly so shown as business asset and partly shown as income from house property fetching rent by assessee and his son respectively. Ld....