TMI Blog2007 (8) TMI 43X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2005 - - - Dated:- 13-8-2007 - JUDGMENT 1. The Revenue is aggrieved by an order dated 6th January, 2005 passed bythe Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'C' in ITA No.5278/Del/96 relevant for the block assessment years 1995-96 and 1996-97. 2. The first issue urged by the Revenue in the present appeal is withregard to payment of a sum of Rs.93,10,418/- to one Ms. Magda towardscon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct of some of the consultants calculated at 3% of the value of contract he found that the commission paid to Ms. Magda was Rs.93,10,418/- which was 11% of the total value of the contract. He restricted the deduction in respect of this payment to 3% of the contract value. He rejected the contention of the Assessee that the entire amount paid to Ms. Magda was expended for business purposes. 4. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inly of the opinion that the Assessing Officer could not have taken two conflicting views on the same date and in respect of the same transaction. In any case, the amount paid to Ms. Magda could not be said to be the undisclosed income of the Assessee. 6. We also find that the amount was expended for the business purposes of the Assessee and this is a finding of fact rendered by the Tribunal. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rame the following substantial question of law for consideration: - " Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in deleting the addition of 8854 UK Pounds (equivalent to Rs.5,26,000/-) made by the Assessing Officer on the ground that it was covered by the undisclosed income of the Assessee on account of telescoping? 10. The filing of paper book is dispensed with. - - T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
