Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2022 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (7) TMI 120 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance of commission expenses - HELD THAT:- We find that the assessee made TDS on payments of commission, similarly it was also subject to service charges payments. Both the parties are taxed at the maximum rates. The assessing officer has not brought any adverse evidence on record to discard the evidences filed by the assessee to substantiate the genuineness of the commission payment. We find that Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in CIT Vs Sujlon Energy Ltd (2013 (7) TMI 697 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] held that where there was sufficient evidence regarding authenticity of payment of sales commission to agents, same cannot be disallowed. In CIT Vs Shree Rama Multi Tech Ltd (2013 (10) TMI 306 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] held that increase in commission expenses as compared to earlier year was no ground to disallow the expenses. In Nangalia Fabrics (P) Ltd (2013 (8) TMI 80 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] it was held by High Court that commission paid through account payee cheque s on account of sales canvasses by party was not bogus payment. In Voltamp Transformers (P) Ltd [1980 (10) TMI 35 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] as held that when assessee-company, dealers in transformers, appointed firm consisting wives of its main shareholder as partners, as its sole selling agent at agreed commission ranging from 3% to 5%, the Tribunal was not justified and wrongly concluded that commission was exorbitant and was not justified by the test of commercial expediency. As held that the commercial expediency and the business need of organisation are concerned, it is not the view point of the assessing officer which should count but it should be the viewpoint of the ordinary bussiessman dealing with a situation faced by the assessee. The Coordinate bench of Mumbai Tribunal in Quantum Advisors (P) ltd [2016 (10) TMI 1 - ITAT MUMBAI] also took view that where the group concern had adequate infrastructure and ability to render marketing and distribution in term of agreement with the assessee as a result of which assessee got business, payment could not be rejected on mere hypothetical basis. - Decided against revenue. Deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) after considering the submissions of assessee accepted the contention/ explanation of the assessee held that on going through the ledger account of both the concerns i.e. Pawan Syntex Pvt. Ltd. and Rashmi Polyfab Pvt. Ltd., it is apparent that at the beginning of F.Y. 2010- 11 i.e. on 01/04/2010, the assessee had amount receivable from both the companies, therefore, lump sum amounts shown in separate accounts cannot be treated as unsecured loans. The net effect of merging of both the accounts of the two companies ultimately indicates balance receivable at the end of the financial year as well. The ld CIT(A) accepted the submissions of the assessee that the amount of Rs. 82.25 lacs and Rs. 29.00 lacs received from these two companies were pertaining to business transactions. Before us, the ld CIT-DR has not controverted these findings of the ld CIT(A), except making submissions that the ld CIT(A) accepted the version of assessee. Neither any contrary fact nor any law is brought to our notice to discard the finding of ld CIT(A) that transaction of amount of Rs. 82.25 lacs and Rs. 29.00 lacs received from these two group companies were not pertaining to business transactions. Hence, we do not find any merit in this ground of appeal raised by the assessee. Delay in depositing the employees’ contribution towards PF and ESI - HELD THAT:- We find that as on today the issue is covered against the assessee by the decision of Hon’ble High Court in CIT Vs GSRTC (2014 (1) TMI 502 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] - Therefore, the assessee has no merit in its case - INstead of keeping the matter alive, the case was restore to Ld.CIT(A) to give effect to the order of the Tribunal in accordance with the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation(supra), In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
|