Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2014 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (6) TMI 250 - ITAT DELHIApplicability of section 40A(2)(b) of the Act - Partial deletion of discount forwarded – excessive or unreasonable expenses – Held that:- The assessee did not furnish any details as to how much commission he received on these plots/properties in the name of his family members against which he paid heavy discount and the assessee can only be allowed to pay maximum discount to the extent of commission received by him on these plots/properties from BPTP - In absence of any details, discount as indicated in the show cause notice @ 50,000/- on each plot/ property totaling Rs. 2,00,000/ - for four properties/plots in the name of his family members has been allowed by treating them at par with other customers - the AO has erred in estimating the quantum of discount forwarded by the appellant - the installments have been paid towards the cost of said plot including late payment interest also - the AO has erroneously referred to the said payments in the nature of discount forwarded for one plot only which is impossible looking to the maximum amount of discount even allowed by the BPTP - there is no effective yardstick for comparison and having regards to the above discussion, it would be deem it fair and reasonable to disallow 25% of discount forwarded to Shri Ashish and Smt. Urvashi as excessive – Decided against Revenue. Deletion of discount forwarded – Amount has been added twice but not reflected in ledger accounts - When BPTP Ltd. has given the commission to the assessee and has itself recovered part of the commission through raising debit notes, the genuineness of the discount forwarded cannot be doubted unless it is established that the discount forwarded to BPTP Ltd. was received back by the appellant in some other form – the AO has either not looked into the ledger account narrations properly or has drawn his adverse conclusion due to short time available for passing the order - the AO has also not given any adverse finding on this issue in the remand report – the order of the CIT(A) is upheld – Decided against Revenue.
|