Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Commissioner of Income Tax-I Kanpur Versus M/s. Motilal Duli Chand

2015 (3) TMI 498 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

Discrepancy in the valuation of closing stock - addition to income - ITAT upholding the action of the CIT (A) in deleting the addition - Held that:- Considering the assessee's submission that there was no reason to value the stock with flat profit rate of 25 per cent but admitted that in the assessment years 1985-86, 1986-87, 1987-88 and 1988-89, the gross profit rate remained fluctuating from 23.14 per cent to 26.12 per cent, therefore, for the purpose of annual valuation of closing stock, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

hould have been on highest profit rate, but this view taken by Assessing Officer has not been found reasonable and, hence, reversed by CIT (A). The Tribunal has concurred with the view taken by CIT (A) and has confirmed the order passed by CIT (A). This is a concurrent finding of fact recorded by CIT (A) and Tribunal. In absence of any patent illegality or arbitrariness shown therein, no reason to interfere with the same - Decided against Revenue.

Valuation of closing stock - differen .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ovisional. Therefore, the addition of ₹ 7,01,537/- was wholly baseless. This finding also has been confirmed by Tribunal. Since on this aspect there is concurrent finding recorded by both the authorities below, in absence of any perversity or illegality therein, we do not find any reason to interfere with the same. - Decided against Revenue.

Disallowance of the quality control expenses - ITAT deleted disallowance - Held that:- It is not in dispute that a sum of ₹ 4,42,592/ .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ion in the nature of business Assessee was doing, was expected from Sri R.N. Yadav, to which he could give no reply. Once it is admitted that under the head of 'quality control expenses' the aforesaid amount was actually paid and the person concerned admitted to have received the same, we do not find that Tribunal has erred in law in affirming the decision of disallowance of ₹ 4,42,592/-. Moreover, here also, concurrent finding has been recorded by both the authorities below which .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

also disclosed before Assessing Officer. CIT(A) has found that it is not the case of Assessing Officer that those persons are Benamidar of appellant. It is not the case of Revenue that the money, so given, came back to Assessee himself. The question whether commission was necessary to be paid or not is not to be examined from the point of view of Assessing Officer but what actually has been done by Assessee is to be examined. Once commission has actually been paid, the same cannot be disallowed .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1961") for the assessment year 1989-90, which has come at the instance of Revenue. While admitting it on 18.7.2007, the Court formulated following four substantial questions of law: "(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in upholding the action of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) in deleting the addition of ₹ 1,51,0 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ssessing Officer? (3) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in deleting the disallowance of ₹ 4,42,592/- made out of the quality control expenses ignoring that the assessee failed to prove that payee parties had surrendered services to justify such huge payment of commission to them? (4) Whether the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in upholding the actio .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

r cent but admitted that in the assessment years 1985-86, 1986-87, 1987-88 and 1988-89, the gross profit rate remained fluctuating from 23.14 per cent to 26.12 per cent, therefore, for the purpose of annual valuation of closing stock, Assessee followed principle of average and applied the same by taking flat rate of 25 per cent since in some years it was on higher side i.e. upto 26.12 and for some of the years slightly on lower side i.e. upto 23.14. This process adopted by Assessee was found gen .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ed by CIT (A). This is a concurrent finding of fact recorded by CIT (A) and Tribunal. In absence of any patent illegality or arbitrariness shown therein, we do not find any reason to interfere with the same and answer question no. 1, accordingly, against Revenue. 3. Coming to question no. 2, we find that CIT (A) has clearly observed that one of the statement relied on by Assessing Officer was dated 3.4.1989, i.e., in relation to assessment year which ended on 31.3.1989, though this subsequent st .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

far as question no. 3 is concerned, it is not in dispute that a sum of ₹ 4,42,592/- was actually paid towards quality control expenses to one R.N. Yadav, who appeared as witness and admitted to have received the aforesaid amount which was for 21 months. The Assessing Officer on its own conjectures and surmises took the view that such huge amount was not justified to be paid as quality control, particularly when the technical qualification of Sri R.N. Yadav was not disclosed. Repeatedly we .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

er, here also, concurrent finding has been recorded by both the authorities below which could not be shown perverse in any manner. Question no. 3 is, therefore, answered against Revenue and in favour of Assessee. 5. Now coming to question no. 4, it is evident from record that a sum of ₹ 17,39,330/- was actually paid towards commission for procuring Government Orders, i.e., the Government Orders received by Assessee for supply. The names and details of parties to whom commission paid was al .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version