M/S BIJAY KUMAR SANTOSH KUMAR ,DHANBAD vs. ITO WARD-1(2), DHANBAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Gargआयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.78/Ran/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-2011) M/S Bijay Kumar Santosh Kumar Vs. Ito, Ward-(1)2, Dhanbad Bata More, Jharia, Dhanbad-828111 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aacfb 1219 L (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.K.Mondal, Acit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/05/2019 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 21/05/2019 आदेश / O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Dhanbad, Jharkhand, Dated 24.01.2018 Passed In First Appeal No.16/Dhn/2013-14 For The Assessment Year 2010-2011. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- 1. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Confirming Disallowance Of Remuneration/Commission Paid To The Partners Smt. Manju Devi Drolia & Smt. Sangeeta Drolia. Remuneration Was Paid As Per Deed Of Partnership & Is An Allowable Expenditure. Disallowance As Confirm By Ld. Cit(A) Is Illegal & Incorrect. Both Were Working Partners Of The Firm. Nothing On Record Was Bought By Ld. A.O. To Contradict This Fact. As Such. Disallowance Made Is Unjustified & Illegal. 2. For That The Consultancy Charges Were Paid, To M/S H. K. Drolia & Company (Chartered Accountant) For Providing Consultancy Charges During The Year Under Consideration. The Same Has Been Paid In Past & Future & No Disallowance Was Made.

132 (Panaji) and Macawber Engg. System (I) (P) Ltd. V. Asstt. CIT [2013] 33 taxmann.com 587 (Mum-Trib) in which it is clearly held that the UPS is the component/equipment connected with the computers and is, therefore, entitled for the depreciation @60%. Again, the contention, as raised, does not give rise to any substantial question of law.” Respectfully, following