SHABBIR HASHAM SAYYED,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,, PUNE
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed
ITA 947/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Sept 2019AY 2012-13
Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.947/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shabbir Hasham Sayyed, New Ashiyana Enterprises, S.No.75/2, Room No.153, Sayyed Nagar, Hadapsar, Pune-411028. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Achps9564L बनाम / V/S. Ito, Ward-14(2), ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Pramod Shingte Revenue By : Mrs. Shabana Parveen सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 26.08.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 05.09.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)-7, Pune Dated 08.12.2016 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under :- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Learned Assessing Officer Erred In Making A Disallowance Of Rs. 66,84,217/- By Invoking Provisions Of Section 40(A)(Ia) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Without Realizing The Fact That Appellant Is An Individual & This Was The First Year Of Applicability Of Provisions Of Section 44Ab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & Therefore For A.Y. 2012 - 2013 No Tax Was Deductible Under Chapter Xvii B & Therefore Provisions Of Section 40(A)(Ia) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Do Not Have Any Application In The Appellant’S Case.
For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Mrs. Shabana Parveen
Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 3Section 40Section 40ASection 40A(3)Section 44A
capital gain provisions and not the business or profession. Therefore, the CIT(A) erred in mistakenly considered the same as turnover when it is not so. In that case, the exemption provisions already discussed above in the Explanation (i.e. ‘specified person’) for the purpose of section 194C of the Act. There is no obligation on the part of the assessee
