Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2023 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (10) TMI 611 - AT - Income TaxSales Incentive (Commission) paid to different persons - commission paid to HUF - related parties - Allegation that, nature of services was not furnished by the assessee - HELD THAT:- It is noted that the books of account were not rejected by the AO. As noted from the records that the assessee had furnished complete details and basis of payment of sales incentive paid to different persons during the year and payments were made through banking channels. The amount of due TDS was deposited by the assessee. It is also noteworthy to mention that the assessee had paid sales incentives in the earlier years for the services rendered by them and the Department did not question the same and in the immediately preceding year, the assessee paid sales incentives at Rs. 34.74 lacs to the subjected persons which was accepted by the Department and thus acknowledged the services rendered by them. AR also submitted that assessment for A.Y. 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 were completed u/s 143(3) without disallowance. Also decided for the assessment year 2001-02 in HUF is a person defined u/s 2(31)(ii) of the Act. Therefore, the findings of the AO that the HUF being non-living person cannot perform any duty are findings with a non-application of mind. Whereas the HUF can perform the duties as any other person can do under Income Tax Act. Decided in favour of assessee. Low withdrawal of household expenses - HELD THAT:- As during the course of hearing, AR could not advance any satisfactory reply controverting the order of the CIT(A). In this situation, the Bench has no other alternative except to confirm the order of the ld. CIT(A). Ground No. 2 of the assessee is dismissed. 10% disallowance of DG Fuel Expenses claimed by the proprietary firm - addition made as said payment was made in cash hence not verifiable’ - HELD THAT:- As during the course of hearing, the ld. AR could not advance any satisfactory reply controverting the order of the ld.CIT(A). In this situation, the Bench has no other alternative except to confirm the order of the ld. CIT(A). Thus Ground No. 3 of the assessee is dismissed.
|