NEETU JUNEJA,PANIPAT vs. ITO, WARD-3, PANIPAT

ITA 6547/DEL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2021AY 2012-1311 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal allowed the disallowance of security guard salaries, finding the assessee's confirmations sufficient. It allowed the disallowance of shop and godown rent for statistical purposes due to insufficient documentation. The issue of proportionate interest on advances was remanded to the AO for further substantiation of commercial expediency. The addition for estimated household expenses was deleted as it was based on surmises.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a proprietor of an Indane Gas Service, filed her income tax return. During assessment, the AO disallowed security guard salaries, shop and godown rent, proportionate interest on advances, and estimated household expenses due to non-deduction of TDS, lack of documentation, and insufficient explanation of commercial expediency. The CIT(A) partly upheld these disallowances.

What were the issues?

Whether disallowances for security guard salaries and rent are justified without proper TDS deduction and documentation. Whether proportionate interest on advances for business purposes is disallowable, and if estimated household expenses addition is valid.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 194-C,Section 40a(ia),Section 194(I),Section 40A(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH, ‘SMC-1’: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI R.K. PANDA & MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBE

For Respondent: Ms. Shivani Bansal, Sr. DR
Hearing: 08.03.2021Pronounced: 28.05.2021

PER R.K. PANDA, AM,

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 20.06.2018 of the learned CIT(A), Karnal, relating to AY-2012-13. 2. The grounds raised by the assessee are as under:- i. That without being prejudice to the interest of the revenue shop & godown security guards salaries of Rs.324000/- paid to four individual persons and the A.O. without considering the facts disallowed on the Learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the same. ii. That no services of any contractor were availed and the A.O. merely conjecture having made payments to contractor for Rs.324000/- without TDS and wrongly disallowed the salaries. iii. That inspite of confi

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 194-C

All 52 judgments and leading authorities on Section 194-C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →