TMI Blog2020 (6) TMI 647X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en doubted. The commissions were paid in relation to the business procured by agents from various locations as indicated in the details furnished by the agents. Such commission payments were in the form of account payee cheques, and in order to evidence the genuineness of transactions of commission received by the agents, these agents have provided a summary of commission received from various companies including that of the assessee. They have also filed copies of form no.26AS showing details of TDS against the receipt of commissions, therefore, a live link between the business of the assessee and payments made to the agents have been established. These independent evidences produced by the assessee would prove that services were rendered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of income at ₹ 98,280/- . After processing the return under section 143(1) of the Act, the same was further selected for scrutiny assessment and notice under section 143(2) was issued and served upon the assessee. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO has noticed that the assessee has paid commission expenses of ₹ 30,66,480/- which appeared to be not genuine. The commission expenses noticed by the AO in the impugned order were in respect of the following persons: Name of person Amount paid (in Rs.) Jagdish Chander Kumar 10,00,000 Neeru J Puri 5,00,000 Madhu Kumar 10,00 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inimize the tax payment, and hence, it was bogus commission expenses paid qua Shri Jagdish Chander Kumar of ₹ 10.00 lakhs, Smt.Madhu Kumar of ₹ 10,00,000/- and Smt.Neeru J Kumar of ₹ 5,00,000/-. Thus, he disallowed a total amount of ₹ 25.00 lakhs, and the remaining was allowed. In appeal, the ld.First Appellate Authority upheld the stand taken by the AO, but gave a part relief of ₹ 2,68,800/- in respect of commission payment paid to Smt.Madhu Kumar and confirmed balance amount of ₹ 22,31,200/-. Against this confirmation, the assessee is now before the Tribunal. 5. Before me, the ld.counsel for the assessee reiterated his submissions as were made before the Revenue authorities. The assessee filed a pape ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Asstt.Year 2014-15. It is reiterated that it was a legitimate business expenditure incurred for business purpose which cannot be doubted, and the same be allowed as business expenditure. 6. On the other hand, the ld.DR supported orders of the Revenue authorities. He further submitted that Revenue authorities have justified in disallowing claim of the assessee, because there was no evidence in the form of client base of a particular agent, correspondences made with the clients, rate of commission for each transaction and the agent-wise contribution to the assessee s turnover. Therefore, orders of the Revenue authorities require to be upheld. 7. I have considered rival submissions and gone through the record carefully. The issue before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a summary of commission received from various companies including that of the assessee. They have also filed copies of form no.26AS showing details of TDS against the receipt of commissions, therefore, a live link between the business of the assessee and payments made to the agents have been established. These independent evidences produced by the assessee would prove that services were rendered by the agents, which have not been disputed by the Revenue. The Revenue authorities doubted the payment of commissions merely on the facts that agents are related to the assessee, and that commission expenses were claimed to reduce the tax liability of the assessee company, which allegation was not supported by any independent finding. The agents h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
