9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 966X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the CIT(A)'s order in deleting the interest in respect of loans advance to sister concerns amounting to Rs. 6,39,371/- merely because sister concerns are in the same line of business without appreciating the fact that the assessee has borrowed interest bearing funds and has not shown any business purpose? 2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer for no services having been substantiated regarding Commission of Rs. 9,23,654/- paid to related parties merely because it was paid by cheque and TDS was deducted? 3) Whether on the facts and i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al. By the impugned order it upheld the findings of CIT(A) by relying upon the decision of Apex Court in S.A. Builders Vs. CIT(A) 288 ITR 1 wherein it has been held that what has to be considered is whether the advance was given as a measure of commercial expediency on the part of the respondent-assessee. The Court observed that the revenue cannot put itself in the arm chair of businessman and decide how the business is to be conducted. (d) Thus if the expenditure has been incurred on account of commercial expenditure, then even if there is no legal obligation to incur it, the same is to be allowed. In the above view, the question as proposed does not raise any substantial question of law. Accordingly Question (1) as proposed is not enter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urrent finding of fact arrived between the CIT(A) and the Tribunal holding that the commission as claimed had been paid. The view taken by the Tribunal is a plausible view and the same has not been shown to be perverse. Accordingly, Question (2) as proposed is not a substantial question of law and is not entertained. 5. Regarding Question No.3: (a) The respondent-assessee had incurred cash expenses of Rs. 37.63 lakhs during the year. The expenses incurred in cash were allowed on account of transportation charges, salary and wages, coolie and cartage, vehicle maintenance, traveling expenses, etc. which are generally paid in cash. The Assessing Officer was of the view that the cash expenditure claimed by the respondent-assessee could not be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
