20000/- under house hold expenses by the Learned CIT (A) Rohtak without any concrete findings and detection on record.ġ0. 20% disallowances of expenses under various heads are quite arbitrary and without any findings.ĩ. He has further erred in ignoring the reply, documents and submissions which are very well on record.Ĩ. agricultural income supported with documents on record by the Learned CIT (A) Rohtak is quite arbitrary. Vipin Stone, Kund, confirmed by the Learned CIT (A) Rohtak is quite arbitrary, ignoring all the facts and figures on record.ħ. 24760/- the alleged calculations of interest on trade advances to M/s. He has further erred in applying the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) read with Section 194C on all the payments supported-with copies of bills and relevant documents on record.Ħ. Pooja Freight Forwarders the intermediary agent on account of as noted below: That the disallowing the entire payments of Rs. He has also ignored the facts and certificates of the shipping agents are on record and were duly considered by AO while allowing the same.ĥ. 1803881/- which were paid for exporting the goods outside India to shipping agent exempted under the provisions of TDS. That the Learned CIT (A) Rohtak has also grossly erred in enhancing the freight charges at Rs. agencies where the provisions of Section 194C i.e. Pooja Freight Forwarders, the intermediary agent on the behalf of appellant regarding in land haulage charges/Freight charges etc. That the Learned CIT (A) Rohtak has erred in confirming the additions of Rs. The Learned CIT (A) Rohtak is also erred in not considering the reply, bank statement and other documents on record.ģ. 40A(3) by the Learned CIT (A) Rohtak is quite arbitrary, excessive, against facts and Law of the case. 6 lacs which was made by the Learned AO u/s. He has further erred in ignoring all the facts, figures and relevant documents.Ģ. 1321034/- alleged difference in the account of M/s. That the Learned CIT (A) Rohtak has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. Further all the grounds of appeal as above are without prejudice to each other.ģ. That the appellant craves the leave to add, modify, amend or delete any of the ground of appeal at the time of hearing. 309330/- by the learned CIT (Appeal) Rohtak ignoring and without discussing that the expenses are under various heads and quite relevant to the business activities and none of the same are of capital or personal in nature.Ħ. That the confirming of 50% disallowance of expenses at Rs. 1872599/- incurred in exporting in goods out of India by foreign shipping companies through Indian Agents while all the relevant documents and certificates are on record.ĥ. That the learned CIT (At Rohtak has grossly erred in confirming the disallowance the expenditure claimed at Rs. 107939/- the alleged difference in sundry creditors accounts confirmed by the learned CIT(A) Rohtak is against the facts, written submissions and documents on record.Ĥ. 386041/- by ignoring that the said amount was out of withdrawals entry of Rs. That the learned CIT (Appeal) Rohtak has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 1150000/- while all the relevant documents and other facts are on record.Ģ. 1267193/- by not considering the sale agreement of Rs. That the leamed CIT (Appeal) Rohtak has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. Since some issues involved in both the appeals are common, hence, we are disposing of the appeals by this consolidated order for the sake of brevity.Ģ. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Rohtak. Sidhu, J.M.:- The Assessee has filed these Appeals against the separate impugned Orders dated for AY 2007-08 and dated (AY 2009-10) passed by the Ld.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |