Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2016 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (6) TMI 595 - ITAT KOLKATATDS u/s 194H - Disallowance of the expenses claimed as ‘incentive paid to retailers’ - disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) - non deduction of tds - Held that:- The assessee in the instant case has just shown the incentive paid as an expense without adjusting the same from the sales account. We further find that in none of the case, incentive has been paid to the retailers in cash which was just the method of accounting and presentation that assessee has shown incentives paid to the retailers as an expense in its profit and loss account. We have also found the ledger of the incentive paid to retailers which is placed on pages 49 to 51 of the paper book and find that the incentive is nothing but a trade discount. As decided in Pareek Electricals v. ACIT [2012 (11) TMI 813 - ITAT CUTTACK] the discount available to the second and third tier franchisees was a matter of availability of products at its maximum retail price and not because they had made income from the service provider. The payments made by the assessee is in the category of principal to principal and the provisions of section 194H of the Act would come into play only when the payment is from principal to agent - Decided in favour of assessee Addition u/s 68 - On question raised by AO about the payment of the incentive in the subsequent year, the assessee submitted that the documents was stolen from its office on 12.10.2011 and therefore the supporting evidences are not available for the purpose of verification - Held that:- AR has not brought anything before us at the time of hearing in support of his ground of appeal. No FIR was filed by the assessee for the stolen books of accounts. Accordingly, we find no infirmity in the order passed by the lower authorities. - Decided against assessee
|