TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (12) TMI 1160
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition of the Ld. A.O. to the extent of Rs. 2,32,000/- on the ground of violation of provision of section 40A(3) being aggregate of payment made to the labour contractors. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance in the nature of donation under the head miscellaneous expenses aggregating Rs. 6,58,000/- on the reasoning that the same is not incurred for the purpose of business whereas the same were wholly and exclusively for business purposes. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the Ld. A.O. in disallowing 91% of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed in confirming the addition of Rs. 5,01,253/- made by the Ld. A.O. 9. Appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify or delete any of the grounds of appeal." 3. At the outset, Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that Ground Nos. 1, 2, 7 and 8 are not pressed. Accordingly, the same stand dismissed as not pressed. 4. At the time of hearing, Ld. AR brought to our notice Page No. 15 of the Assessment Order to submit that Assessing Officer has not carried out any enquiry and made the addition without making any further investigation. Further, he submitted that in assessee's own case for the immediately preceding Assessment Years in A.Y. 2009-10 and 2010-11 the Coordinate Bench has decided the issues in favour of the assessee. He ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r, no such any specific finding in the order of the AO for verification of the party in dispute. Both the revenue authorities did not complete verification of the purchaser in proper way. The Ld. DR was not able to press the issue strongly. We are not accepting the order of the Ld. CIT(A) for the addition made an amount of Rs. 9,52,592/-. Accordingly, the addition amount of Rs. 952,592/- is deleted. In ground no-5, related to claim of expanses for late payment charge of TDS amount of Rs. 3,93,720/- the issue was adjudicated by the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. DR also relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(A). We respectfully considered the orders of the Coordinate Bench in case of DNV GL AS vs. ADIT in ITA No. 4687/MUM/2016, dated-31-05-2017, M/s. Jinda....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rs were returned un-served as per the list enclosed herewith. Annexure-4. You are requester to give the complete details of these above-mentioned Sundry Creditors as follows as it, is your responsibility to prove the genuineness of the creditors appearing in your books of accounts. Name & Address of the Party from whom the purchases have been made. VAT number. Copy of return of income. Copy of Sales Tax Return. Copy of the Purchase Order. Details of Octroi/Freight Charges if paid. Details of mode of transportation, and installation. You are. requested to submit the above details immediately, failure to M/s. Ravi Developments which the name will be treated as unexplained investme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on the available documents from the VAT authorities. No cross verification was allowed by the Ld. AO. The VAT authorities are generally examining the payment of VAT. The Sale Tax Department mostly concerned about the input tax credit availed by the party & payment of output tax. The assessee had utilized this purchase for its working progress. For explanation of fact, learned counsel in his PB page No. 38 annexed the comparative net profit ratio for assessment year 2008-09 to 2010-11. The details were submitted before the Ld. A.O. on 11.01.2013 vide page No. 37 of the APB. The issue was also discussed by filing a letter dated 09.07.2014 to the Ld. CIT(A). The copy of the letter is annexed in page No. 18 to 26 of the APB. The details of purc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 5 is rejected. Ground No. 6 is general in nature. In ITA No. 765/MUM/2022 in ground No. 1,4,7,8 is not pressed. Ground No. 2 is dismissed. Ground Nos. 3, 5 and 6 are allowed. Ground No. 9 is general in nature. Therefore, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed." 7. Since the issues raised in the appeal for the year under consideration are exactly similar and grounds as well as the facts are also identical, at the same time, it is established that assessee has purchased goods from the hawala and entry operators. These purchases are part of work in progress in the A.Y. 2008-09. As per the Ground No. 5, the assessee has made an alternate plea that when the purchases are held to be bogus and only certain percentage only to ....