TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (5) TMI 791
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat the Ld. A.O. as well as Ld. CIT (Appeal) gravely erred NIL in upholding the disallows of the following expenses: - (i) disallowance u/s 37(1) of the Act Rs. 2,96,150/- (ii) disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the 1.T Act Rs. 15,77,164/- (iii) disallowance u/s 40A (3) of the 1.T Act Rs. 5,03,580/- (iv) disallowance u/s 40A(3) of the I.T Act on account of cash payment beyond the specified limit as per discussion in para 5 of Rs. 6,70,919/-. 2. That the Ld. A.O. as well as Ld. CIT (Appeal) has failed to NIL appreciate the evidence produced before the Ld. A.O. as well as Ld. CIT (Appeal) and disallowed the expenses of Rs. 30,47,813/- without any cognate reason." 2.1 Later on, the assessee revised Form No. 36 on 01.12.2022 raising following gro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aid limit. 6. That the entire Assessment Order is wrong, arbitrary, illegal, unjust against the facts as well as against the Law. 7. That the appellant craves leave to amend any one or more of the grounds of appeal as stated above as & when the need for doing so arise." 3. The relevant facts giving rise to this appeal are that the assessee is deriving income from running the cold storage and trading of fruits, dry fruits etc. It filed its Income Tax Return (hereinafter, the 'ITR') on 30.09.2014 declaring loss of Rs. (-)1,68,41,420/- under normal provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter, the 'Act') and income of Rs. 1,55,41,679/- as per provisions of MAT under section 115JB of the Act. The case was selected for scrutiny and conse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....adras High Court in the case of Coimbatore Salem Transport (P.) Ltd. [1966] 61 ITR 480 (Mad). 5. The next issue is in respect of disallowance of Rs. 15,77,164/- under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. It was submitted that the sum of Rs. 15,77,164/- was paid to various persons through Mr. Rehmat Ali, who got the job of packing fruits, dry fruits, etc. through various labours. He acted as a head on behalf of various labours whom payments were done partly in cash and partly through cheque. In turn, Sh. Rehmat Ali had paid to other labours after withdrawals. The arrangement was purely for business convenience. It was contended that there was no contract per se; hence, the provisions of tax deduction at source (TDS) did not get attracted here. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....were in cash below Rs. 20,000/-. The payment of Rs. 60,000/- was made as per muster roll and hence, the same was also not paid directly in contravention of provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act. Hence, the Ld. AR prayed for consequential relief on this score. The next part of the disallowance relates to the sum of Rs. 6,70,919/- under section 40A(3) of the Act. The Ld. AR contended that these payments as evident from Ld. CIT(A)'s order, consisted of three sums. * Freight paid being below Rs. 35,000/- at one go/day: Rs. 2,74,479/- * Payment of packing expenses based on muster roll and on the basis of muster roll no payment exceeded the limit prescribed under section 40A (3) total Rs. 3,51,185/- * Procurement expenses Rs. 45,255/-. 6....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Making payment to one person on behalf of others, in the present case, will not attract TDS as the said person has not supplied manpower/labour. The payment arrangement was purely for business convenience and other labours were independent and their mustor roll was being maintained by the assessee. We have considered the entire facts and given a thoughtful consideration to the matter and are of the considered view that the assessee is not liable to deduct TDS. The genuineness of expenditure is not in dispute here. Hence, it is held that the disallowance of Rs. 15,77,164/- under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act is not justified. Therefore, the same is hereby deleted. The assessee gats consequential relief. 10. Regarding disallowances under sec....