K.S.JHAVERI,J. - (1.) By way of this appeal, the appellant has assailed the judgment and order of the tribunal whereby tribunal has partly allowed the appeal of the assessee only for the statistical purposes.
(2.) Counsel for the appellant has framed following substantial questions of law:- "(A). Whether under the facts and circumstances and in law, the ld. ITAT has erred in confirming the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act of 1961 on account of non deduction of tax at source on interest paid to financial institutions even wen the appellant has paid the entire amount and no amount remains payable at the end of the year? (B) Whether the ld. ITAT has erred on facts and in law in confirming the disallowance of interest under section 40(a)(ia) ignoring that in view of the amendment made in this w.e.f. 1.4.2015 which is to remove unintended hardship, only 30% of such amount should be disallowed as this amendment to the provision being curative in nature, its effect needs to be retrospective in operation? (C) Whether the ld. ITAT is correct in law in confirming the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) even when the receipt has included its income in its return and has paid tax thereon? (D) Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. ITAT was correct in confirming the order of CIT(A) confirming the disallowance of 5% of expenses claimed holding probability of personal element in such expenses inspite of all expenses being fully vouched and detailed?
(3.) The facts of the case are that the assessee an individual derives income from trading in machinery items mainly generator sets and engines. During the year, the assessee has declared gross profit of Rs. 3,04,73,702/- on total turnover of Rs. 29,11,38,336/- at the g.p. rate of 10.46% as against g.p. rate of 12.91% on total turnover of Rs. 21,51,45,871/- in the immediately preceding year. Thus, the assessee has declared low g.p. rate in the year under consideration as compared the preceding year.;