TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (8) TMI 121
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 2. The Ld. C.I.T.(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal preferred by the Appellant against the disallowance of depreciation on Motor Cars amounting to Rs.l,98,672/-made by the A.O. 2.2 It is submitted and contended that the Ld. C.I.T. (A) ought not to have dismissed the above referred ground of appeal but ought to have allowed the appeal of the Appellant in view of detailed facts and submission made before him. 3. The Ld. C.I.T. (A) has erred in dismissing the appeal preferred by the Appellant against the disallowance made by the A.O. u/s 40(a)(ia) amounting to Rs. 7,34,456/-. 3.1 It is submitted and contended that the Ld. C.I.T. (A) ought not to have dismissed the above" referred ground of appeal but ought to have allowed the appeal of the Appellant in view of detailed facts and submission made before him. 4. The Ld. C.I.T. (A) has erred in dismissing the appeal preferred by the Appellant against the disallowance made by the A.O. u/s 36(1)(iii) amounting to Rs. 3,49,216/-. 4.1 It is submitted and contended that the Ld. C.I.T. (A) ought not to have dismissed the above referred ground of appeal but ought to have allowed the app....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Rs. 1,98,672/- was disallowed after attracting provision of section 38(2) of the Act. 7. The assesse has filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal stating that assessee could not substantiate that motor car has been exclusively used for business purposes. Ground No. 3 ( Disallowance of Rs. 7,34,456/- u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act) 8. During the course of assessment, the assessing officer asked the assessee to furnish detail of interest paid on car loan and TDS deducted thereupon and further to explain if TDS has not been deducted on such interest paid then why the said interest should not be disallowed u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The assessee explained that no TDS on interest paid of Rs. 5,51,159/- on car loan was deducted since the amount of monthly EMI determined by the car loan provider was inclusive of principal + interest amount secured by way of post dated cheque presented every month for a clearance on stipulated date. The assessing officer has not accepted the explanation of the assessee and disallowed interest of Rs. 5,51,159/- paid on car loan u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The assessing officer has also noticed that the assessee has pa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....has failed to submit any fund flow statement to demonstrate that there was no diversion of interest bearing funds. Therefore, the assessing officer has made proportionate disallowance of interest u/s. 36(1)9iii) of Rs. 3,49,216/- and added to the total income of the assessee. 11. Aggrieved assesse has filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A) . The ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee reiterating the facts reported by the assessing officer. 12. During the course of appellate proceedings before us, in respect of disallowance u/s. 14A, the ld. counsel contended that assessee has earned dividend income to the amount of Rs. 2,10,249/- whereas assessing officer had made disallowance to the amount of Rs. 5,13,516/- which was more than the exempt income earned. The ld. counsel has further stated that assessee has correctly computed the disallowance to the extent of Rs. 43,634/- which has not been considered by the lower authorities. During the course of appellate proceedings before us, the ld. counsel has also furnished paper book comprising copies of bills furnished before the lower authorities and referred pages no. 8 to 23 of the paper book. The ld. counsel has contended ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....473/- and other secured loan and unsecured loan to the amount of Rs. 38,17,183/- and total investment made was reflected at Rs. 61,34,107/-. In the balance sheet of the assessee firm of the preceding year, as on 31st March, 2009 the total capital of the partners were in the negative as on 31st March, 2009 at Rs. -81,05,598/- whereas the sarafi deposit shown at Rs. 3,78,52,532/- and secured loan and unsecured loan was to the amount of Rs. 77,29,181/- and total investments was reflected at Rs. 1,12,44,492/-. No other information i.e. break-up of investment or schedules of the balance sheet were submitted to substantiate that no expenses were incurred towards earning exempt income. Therefore, we do not find any substance in the contention of the assessee of computing disallowance to the extent of Rs. 43,634/- towards expenditure incurred for earning exempt income, however, we restrict the disallowance to the extent of exempt income to the amount of Rs. 2,48,183/- as held in the various decisions of ITAT Ahmedabad i.e. Jivraj Tea Lt. Vs. DCIT, ITA No. 886/Ahd/2012 dated 28th August, 2014 and the decision of ITAT Delhi in the case of Sahara India Finance Corporation Ltd. 1481 ITD 336....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the interest on car loan was covered. However, the alternative contention of the ld. counsel that no TDS to be made if the payee has paid tax as per proviso to section 40(a)(ia) and the judicial pronouncements referred in his submission and the claim that payment made to Navin Tradelink Pvt. Ltd. was towards reimbursement of expenses are required to be considered after examination and verification of the relevant material. Therefore, we restore both the issues as supra to the file of the assessing officer for deciding afresh after examination/verification of the relevant material to be furnished by the assessee at the time of set aside proceedings. Accordingly, this ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. The assessing officer has made disallowance of interest expenditure of Rs. 3,49,216/- u/s. 36(1)(iii) treating the advances made for non-business purposes. On this issue, the ld. CIT(A) has held that interest cost on investment made in the capital assets i.e. on purchase of shops, purchase of machinery should have been capitalized and the assessee has not given any fund flow analysis to substantiate that amount used for investment in such ass....