TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 127X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s and stand of the parties. Once such an approach has been taken by the first appellate authority, naturally, the tribunal found that the view taken by the first appellate authority accords with even the tribunal's view. The tribunal referred to its order in a case of a Holiday Club. We do not think that merely because the tribunal did not make any reference and specifically to the two rulings/judgments of this court or the detailed finding in the Commissioner's order that it has committed any perversity or its order is vitiated by an error of law apparent on the face of the record. We do not think that the tribunal acted in any manner contrary to law. - INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 344 OF 2014 - - - Dated:- 20-3-2017 - S. C. DHARMADHIK ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id not have marketing infrastructure in place, it had appointed M/s. Prestige Holiday Resorts Pvt. Ltd. as its marketing agent. The assesse had entered into an agreement with M/s. Prestige Holidays Resorts Pvt. Ltd., in terms of which, it was paying 25% commission on sale to M/s. Prestige Holidays Resorts Pvt. Ltd. The assessee also claimed to have reimbursed expenses to the above extent. That was incurred by M/s. Prestige Holidays Resorts Pvt. Ltd. on behalf of the assessee. This was in tune with the marketing arrangement/agreement between the two parties. The details of these expenses are set out at page 4 of the paper book. During the course of assessment, it was observed that the assessee had deducted tax at source from the payments of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that merely because the tribunal did not make any reference and specifically to the two rulings/judgments of this court or the detailed finding in the Commissioner's order that it has committed any perversity or its order is vitiated by an error of law apparent on the face of the record. We do not think that the tribunal acted in any manner contrary to law. 7. The first question, therefore, is not a substantial question of law. 8. The sum involved in the second question of ₹ 2,55,654/- constitutes an addition, which was made by the assessing officer in relation to retention money forfeited. This sum is too meager. We do not think that the quantum of this addition should, therefore, detain us. We will decide that question ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
