9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 367X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sheth and Mr. Atul K. Jasani for the respondents ORDER P. C. 1. The tribunal has dismissed the appeal of the Revenue by the order dated 13th September, 2013. That is why this further appeal. The assessment year in question is 2002-03. 2. It is submitted that the questions proposed at pages 3 and 4 (para 4) are all substantial questions of law arising out of this order of the tribunal. 3. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lowance of procurement expenses and the computer expenses. 5. The Revenue did not accept this order and challenged it in the appeal before the tribunal. As far as the Revenue's request was concerned, the tribunal found that all the three grounds of appeal cannot be entertained. The two assessment years, namely, 2001-02 and 2003-02 raised these issues. The tribunal found that this is a second ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rity called for certain remand reports from the assessing officer and after going through the remand reports as well as evidence submitted by the assessee, the first appellate authority was satisfied with the submission of the assessee that the services were actually rendered by the I-Cap to the assessee. However, he disallowed the 10% of the commission as reasonable disallowance. The assessee fil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e made cannot be sustained for the reasons that the tribunal has set out. 7. We do not think that we should re-appreciate and reappraise the factual matters. Our further appellate jurisdiction does not enable us to do this. The concurrent orders, therefore, cannot be termed as perverse or vitiated by any error of law apparent on the face of the record. Consequently, the appeal fails and it is dis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
