ITO-5(1), INDORE vs. SHRI R G PRAJAPATI, INDORE

First ground is with regard to addition of Rs.5,19,793/- u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Facts, in brief as noted by the AO are that the assessee had taken loan of Rs.43,91,524/- from NBFC. During the year the assessee had paid interest to CITI Finance at Rs.5,09,919/-

Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who deleted the addition against which the revenue is in appeal before this Tribunal.

Before me, the ld. Sr. DR relied upon the order of the AO. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the assessee relied upon the order of the ld. CIT(A).

I have heard rival submissions and perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. I find that the Ld. CIT(A) recorded that the TDS had been deducted by the payee companies therefore, the deduction of tax on the same amount would be result of double taxation. This view is supported by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage P. Ltd. vs. CIT(2007) 293 ITR 226(Hon'ble Supreme Court). Before me the revenue could not controvert the finding recorded by the Ld. CIT(A) by bringing any contrary material on record. Therefore, the order of Ld. CIT(A) on ground no.1 is confirmed. Accordingly, ground no.1 is dismissed.

Ground No. 2 is with regard to addition of Rs.39,365/- on account of short term capital gain. Before me, the ld. Sr. DR relied upon the order

On consideration of material available on record and rival submission, I find that the Ld. CIT(A) had categorically noted that the assessee had offered the said amount in the P & L account as income but the AO had again added the said amount which is technically wrong. Thus, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Ld. CIT(A). Same is confirmed. Accordingly, ground no.2 of the appeal of the revenue is also dismissed.

In result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.