Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2011 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (5) TMI 512 - AT - Income TaxNon deduction of TDS u/s 194H on commission payment - DR contended that assessee has paid the commission to the ultimate purchaser therefore, it should have deduct the TDS - Held that:- The person to whom discount was granted by the assessee were not acting as an agent for the assessee, rather they are the purchaser of the property - They have not provided any type of services to the assessee - They have just booked the flat through the assessee - Assessee is an agent between the builder and the ultimate purchaser of the flats - The assessee has parted with some part of the commission received from the builder from alluring the purchaser so that it can earn more commission - It is just providing a discount to the purchaser and not paying any commission for any services taken from such customers - Decided in favour of assessee. Commission expenses - Held that:- AO has not highlighted what is the fair market value of the services rendered by these persons and how AO has availed their services at a higher rate than the one available in the open market - CIT(A) further observed that there is no substantial decline in the net margin of the assessee - Its turn over has been increased from Rs. 1,65,28,203 to Rs. 3,36,78,330 - Thus the turn over has become almost double - Decided in favour of assesee. Advertisment Expenditure - According to the assessee, M/s Surender Properties is in the existence of the real estate business even before the assessee came into existence - Held that:- The name of Surender Mukhija in a way enhanced the business of assessee - However, there is no evidence available on record to this effect - The assessee has placed on record copy of the assessment order passed in the case of Shri Surender Mukhija from which it is found that Shri Surender Mukhija had incurred a sum of Rs. 20,39,479 towards advertisement and the name of assessee has been appearing in his advertisement - Thus in a way, assessee has been fairly compensated, the expenses incurred by both the concerns mutually give benefit to each other mutually - Hence, it cannot be termed that assessee has extended undue benefit to third concern by giving its name in the advertisement of the assessee - Otherwise expenses have not been doubted by the Assessing Officer - Decided in favour of assessee.
|