TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (10) TMI 748
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssee is contrary to law, facts of the case and the materials available on record. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case the ld. CIT(A)-II should have been pleased to allow the appeal in toto granting all relief prayed for in the grounds of appeal. 3. (a) The ld. CIT(A)-III erred in stating that the chits dividend received by the assessee is taxable and the assessee cannot claim exemption on grounds of mutuality. b) The ld. CIT(A)-III should have been pleased appreciate that there is absolutely no difference between the assessee qua subscriber and the other subscribers forming part of the general public either in the matter of rights or on the matter of obligations. c) The ld. CIT(A)-III should hav....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....such payments. b) Legal & Professional charges The ld. CIT(A)-III erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 47,97,898/- under te legal and professional charges. The ld. CIT(A)-III failed to appreciate that the amount includes both the above expenses for which TDS is not necessary and ought to have been allowed by him. c) Repairs and Maintenance & Advertisement: The ld. CITA)-III should have been pleased to and delete the4 addition of Rs. 17,92,884/- & Rs. 85,786/- under the head repair and maintenance and advertisement respectively appreciating that the assessee had furnished the details of branches and administrative office and the amount for which tax was not deducted were below the limits prescribed u/s 194C.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gainst the assessee for the assessment years 1992-93 to 1995-96 and following the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in the assessee's own case for the earlier assessment years, this issue is decided against the assessee. 5. Coming to ground no.4, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee has claimed various expenses but the same has been disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia) on the ground that the assessee has not deducted tax at source while making the payments. He submitted that the assessee has furnished all the `required details before the assessing authority and also before the CIT(A), but the same has not been considered in the proper perspective. He also submitted that TDS has not been deducted from the payment of commission....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e same. 7. Having heard both the parties and having gone through the material on record, we find that the assessee has raised all the above contention and also filed all the details before the assessing authority and also before the CIT(A). We find that though this evidence goes to the root of the matter and the said evidence has not been considered or appreciated or verified by any of the authorities below. In view of the same, we remand the issue to the file of the AO with a direction to verify the details and decide the issue in accordance with the law. Needless to mention that the assessee shall be given a fair opportunity of hearing. Accordingly, we remand the issue to the file of the AO and this ground of the assessee is allowed. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rejected. 10. As regards ground no.3 th3e learned DR supported the orders of the authorities below, while the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that all the details were submitted before the authorities below to prove that the bad debts were written off in the books of accounts of the assesseee and the CIT(A) has correctly deleted the same. 10.1 Having heard both the parties and having gone through the material on record, we find that the CIT(A) had followed the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and also decision of the Tribunal, wherein it has been held that as per amended law, it is no longer required that the assessee has to prove that the debts has become bad and it is sufficient that the same have been writ....