9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of commission paid to commission agents. 2. Disallowance of commission paid to Smt. Tripta Sethi. 3. Disallowance of miscellaneous expenses. 4. Disallowance of entertainment expenses. 5. Disallowance of expenses on presentation articles. Detailed Analysis: 1. Disallowance of Commission Paid to Commission Agents The Revenue contested the deletion of an addition of Rs. 67,900 by the CIT(A) on account of disallowance of commission paid to commission agents. The Assessing Officer (AO) had disallowed the commission payments, deeming them non-genuine because the commission agents were connected to the partners of M/s Fine Art Industries, Phagwara. The AO observed that the commission paid was deposited in the agents' bank accounts and subsequently transferred to M/s Fine Art Industries. The assessee provided affidavits and produced the agents for examination, but the AO found the details insufficient. The CIT(A), after reviewing the affidavits and statements, concluded that the commission payments were genuine and deleted the disallowance. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the assessee had consistently paid commission to these agents since 1984-85, and the AO had accepted these payments in previous years. The Tribunal found no justification for the AO's disallowance, confirming the CIT(A)'s order. 2. Disallowance of Commission Paid to Smt. Tripta Sethi The AO disallowed Rs. 6,500 paid to Smt. Tripta Sethi, considering it ingenuine. Smt. Tripta Sethi had filed an affidavit and confirmed receiving the commission. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, and the Tribunal upheld this decision, citing the reasons given in the first issue and noting that the AO had no grounds to treat the payment as non-genuine. 3. Disallowance of Miscellaneous Expenses The assessee's cross-objection included a ground regarding the disallowance of miscellaneous expenses, which was not pressed before the Tribunal and hence dismissed as not pressed. 4. Disallowance of Entertainment Expenses The assessee claimed Rs. 21,907 and Rs. 2,761 as draw expenses, which the AO disallowed, allowing only Rs. 5,000 under section 37(2A). The CIT(A) upheld this disallowance. The Tribunal found that both the AO and CIT(A) had not provided a detailed explanation for their decisions, and the expenses were actually draw expenses, not entertainment. The Tribunal cited several judgments, including CIT v. Gaekwar Mills Ltd., to support the claim that these expenses were outside the ambit of section 37(2A). Consequently, the Tribunal deleted the disallowance, granting the assessee relief of Rs. 16,907 and Rs. 2,761. 5. Disallowance of Expenses on Presentation Articles The AO disallowed Rs. 7,000 out of Rs. 55,100 claimed for presentation articles, applying rule 6B. The CIT(A) upheld this disallowance. The Tribunal, however, found that the articles were given to maintain business relations and did not bear the assessee's name or logo, thus not qualifying as advertisement under rule 6B. The Tribunal referenced CIT v. Allana Sons (P.) Ltd. and CIT v. Mysodet (P.) Ltd., concluding that rule 6B was not applicable. The disallowance was deleted, providing relief to the assessee. Conclusion The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and partly allowed the assessee's cross-objection, affirming the CIT(A)'s deletions of disallowances and providing relief on various grounds.
|
