TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (12) TMI 1160
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 purchases claimed in respect of project Woods Bld No. 1 to 4 i.e.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dd, 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 relied on those order. 5. On the other hand, Ld. DR relied on the order of the lower authorities. 6. Considere....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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. Jindal Aluminum Ltd. Vs. DCIT in ITAT No. 32/Bang/2019 dated 25.08.2021. We are inclining on the order of the CIT(A). The ground no-5 o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 investments on account of Purchases made in. your case. On perusal of the Annexure-4, it was also noted that following parties were blacklisted by the Sales Tax Department on account of Hawala Transactions. The letters i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 purchase was also submitted in page No. 35 of the APB. The whole addition was made on borrowed satisfaction from VAT department. No proper cross verification was made by the revenue authorities. The Ld. DR also did not make any strong objection against the assessee. The stock was exhausted by the assessee during the year thro....