GST Helpdesk   Subscription   Demo   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (3) TMI 498 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

2015 (3) TMI 498 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT - TMI - 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 th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Officer took the view that valuation of stock should 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. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n 31.3.1989. Moreover, the said statement was provisional. 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 i .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Revenue as to what kind of technical qualification 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 be .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d details of parties to whom commission paid was 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 a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Suyash Agrawal ORDER 1. This is an appeal filed 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 (Ap .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

atement filed with the Bank and one before the Assessing 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 Tr .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

o 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, 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

aken 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, 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 whi .....

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 accordingly and in favour of Assessee. 4. So 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

on of disallowance of ₹ 4,42,592/-. Moreover, 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 d .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| 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