Sadbhav Engineering Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT (ITAT Ahemdabad)- In the instant case, the assessee claimed deduction u/s.80IA(4) of the Act for all the years which were disallowed by the AO on the ground that as per provisions of section 80IA(5) of the Act the computation of deduction has to be done by setting off of brought forward losses and depreciation of eligible business against their respective eligible incomes.
It was held that loan taken from the relatives cannot be compared with bank loan because loan from the relatives are without security, while loan from the bank is secured. Tribunal has held in the case of Omkarmal Gaurishanker –Vs- ITO reported in 92 TTJ (Ahd.) 223 that interest paid to relatives @24% is reasonable.
Payments were made to truck drivers, who insisted for payment in cash was not exceptional case, because the assessee has not made payments to individual truck owners but to various brokers through whom the trucks were engaged, and therefore, the case of the assessee was not covered by the exceptions mentioned in Rule 6DD.
CIT(A) found force in the submission of the assessee that the interest at the rate of 12% was also taken as reasonable in the Income Tax Act under the provisions of section 40A(b)(iv) for the purpose of calculating interest to the partners. The CIT(A) also followed the decision of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT Vs. M/s.Raj Steel Industries and Vipul Y. Mehta Vs. ACIT (supra) where the rate of interest at 18% to 24% was considered to be reasonable.
We have heard both the parties and perused the material placed before us. We find that during the year under consideration, the assessee claimed travelling expenses amounting to Rs.4,29,01 1/-. The AO disallowed 50% of the claim because the expenses included the expenses of assessee’ s wife also.
It was held had held that Disallowance u/s 14A for the period before AY 2008-09 i.e pre-Rule 8D period, should be restricted to 2% of the dividend income. Shakuntaladevi Trade & Investments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai)
As regards assessee’s submission that the provisions of section 9(1)(vii) will not come into play in this case because the entire testing process is automated, it is well settled that when no human intervention is involved in any services, such services cannot be treated to be of the nature which can be covered by the scope of section 9(1)(vii).
Since there is variation of decisions on ‘paid’ and ‘payable’ issue in view of the fact that the hon’ble Calcutta high court and Gujarat high court have decided the question in favour of the Revenue and the hon’ble Allahabad high court in the case of CIT vs M/s Vector shipping Services (P) Ltd has proceeded in favour of the assessee, the case law of hon’ble supreme court in the case of CIT vs Vegetable Products Ltd., 88 ITR 192 would apply so as to decide the issue in assessee’s favour.
Having heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record, there is no dispute in principle that the amount is otherwise disallowable on merits as has been accepted by the ld. AR in response to the second ground of the Revenue’s appeal.
From the facts of the case it reveals that not only the existence of outstanding liability of labour charges for so many years is improbable in the normal course of business but the assessee has also failed to give any evidence regarding the genuineness of the creditors,
