Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2018 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (5) TMI 125 - ITAT MUMBAIDisallowance of 20% of Legal & Professional Fees paid - Held that:- Neither the AO nor the CIT(A) has bring any cogent material on record while making adhoc disallowance @ 20% of expenditure. AO or the Ld. CIT(A) has not referred anywhere that no such services as referred in the corporate service agreement, is undertaken by the Anand Automotive Systems Ltd. No specific reason is identified for making adhoc disallowance only. No specific reason is mentioned as to why the disallowances made @ 20% only. Availing of such services from the group concern is not un-common. The lower authorities have not identified, if the payments made to related party is unreasonable. No comparable on reason cum industry is referred by lower authorities. Moreover, we have seen that Legal & Professional Fees is only 2.02% of the sales. No justification in partial disallowance of Legal and Professional Expenses, which we delete. - Decided in favour of assessee 20% of disallowance of advertisement and publicity expenses - Held that:- The assessee has shown to have incurred expenses on advertisement, gift, coupons, simple expenses and export expenses. The Assessing Officer disallowed the 20% on the basis of his discretion. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance without specifying any reason. Moreover, the lower authorities have not identified, if the payments made to related party is unreasonable, we have seen that advertisement and publicity is only 4.30% of the sales. In absence of any specific reason for disallowance @ 20% of the expenses, the adhoc disallowance is not sustainable. - Decided in favour of assessee Disallowance of 20% of share of common marketing expenses - Held that:- No period of validity of agreement is mentioned in this agreement as well. We have noted that the lower authority has not disputed the expenses incurred in relation to the agreement, only the validity of agreement was disputed. The lower authority has not brought any material on record that payment incurred on common marketing expenses is in-genuine or unreasonable. Considering the fact that neither any adverse material was brought on record nor any specific reason was mentioned before disallowing 20% only of the common marketing expenses. We have seen that share of common marketing expenses is only 1.61% of the sales. No justification in making adhoc disallowance @ 20% of the common marketing expenses - Decided in favour of assessee Disallowance of 20% of commission discount - Held that:- Neither any adverse material was brought on record or any specific reason was mentioned before disallowing 20% of commission and discount payments. The lower authorities have no identified that the payment made on account of commission and discount is unreasonable. Thus when the lower authority has neither disputed the genuinenity nor given any specific reason for adhoc disallowance, the disallowance is not justifiable. Moreover, we have seen that commission and discount is only 2.07% of the sales.- Decided in favour of assessee
|