TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (12) TMI 1740
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....olding that the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) is applicable only on the "amount payable" and not on the amount paid and debited to P&L account without deduction of tax at source. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) was right in holding that as the amount of Rs.69,27,693/- paid towards warehousing charges is not payable at the year end, the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) cannot be attracted. 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, where a sum of Rs.69,27,693/- was paid towards warehousing charges for the purpose of storage of goods/stock for assessee's business is covered by Section 1941 so that the failure to deduct tax would warrant application of the provisions of section 4....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....operative Marketing cum processing Society Ltd. Safidan 23,89,737/- 4 Central Warehousing Corporation, New Delhi Gohana 14,22,527/- 5 Various payment of storage charges to above warehouse 4,13,293/- Total 69,27,693/- Assessing Officer invoked the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) and disallowed the above amount and added to the total income of the assessee. 3.3 Before the CIT(A) it was argued that the assessee has purchased food grains and stored the same in the warehouses and the expenditure towards warehousing charges were debited in profit and loss account. Further, she has sold the food grains stored in the warehouses to various parties and has issued bills in which the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a case where no amount is outstanding at the end of the year the same has been decided against the assessee by the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Vinay Ashwinikumar Joneja Vs. ITO vide ITA No.1514/PN/2012 order dated 22-10-2013 for A.Y. 2006-07. It has been held in the said decision that provisions of section 40(a)(ia) are applicable in a case even if no amount is "payable" at the end of the year but which has been debited to the profit and loss account and on which no tax has been deducted at source. Therefore, the order of the Ld.CIT(A) deleting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer on this account being not in consonance with the decision of the Tribunal is reversed and the ground raised by the R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that the opening stock of Soyabean has been shown at Rs.2,300/- per Quintal and during the year the assessee has sold soyabean only to the extent of 894 quintals in August 2008 @Rs.2,599/- per quintal. The Assessing Officer obtained the purchase rates of the soyabean from APMC, Latur for the period 27-03-2009 to 31-03-2009 which were between Rs.2,000/- per quintal to Rs.2,255/- per quintal. The Assessing Officer, therefore, adopted market value of soyabean at Rs.2,255/- per quintal and accordingly worked out the closing stock of soyabean at Rs.17,04,780/- as against Rs.13,61,142/- shown by the assessee. The Assessing Officer accordingly made addition of Rs.3,43,638/- on account of under valuation of stock of soyabean. 5.2 Before CIT(A) i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ut and proved as to how and what basis she has valued the closing stock @Rs.1,800/- per quintal. In view of the above facts and discussion, the addition on account of under valuation of stock of soyabean has been confirmed to the extent of Rs.2,47,248/- as against made by the A.O. at Rs.3,43,638/-. The A.O. is directed accordingly. Ground No.2 stands partly allowed". 5.4 Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A) the Revenue is in appeal before us. 6. We have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) and the Paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We find from the order of the CIT(A) that the Assessing Officer had obtained information from APMC, Latur according t....