Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2018 (10) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2018 (10) TMI 1888 - AT - Income Tax


Issues:
1. Deletion of addition of ?62,03,670/- made by the Assessing Officer.
2. Disallowance of a sum of ?8 lac paid as commission.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Deletion of addition of ?62,03,670/-
The Revenue raised an issue against the deletion of the addition made by the Assessing Officer regarding the amount received by the assessee from Exxonmobil Lubricants Pvt. Ltd. The assessee claimed that the amount received was a liability under the Marketing Assistance Programme (MAP) agreement and was to be passed on to sub-distributors as an incentive. The Assessing Officer treated the differential amount of ?62,03,670/- as income of the assessee and included it in the total income. However, the CIT(A) accepted the assessee's explanation and ordered the deletion of the addition. The Tribunal examined the relevant agreements and found that the amount received by the assessee was part of the MAP Agreements and was to be passed on to sub-distributors. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had consistently followed this practice in previous assessments, and there was no factual difference in the accounting of the amount. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision in favor of the assessee.

Issue 2: Disallowance of ?8 lac paid as commission
The assessee's appeal challenged the disallowance of a sum of ?8 lac paid as commission to two individuals. The assessee failed to produce evidence of the genuineness of these transactions, resulting in the disallowance upheld by the CIT(A). The Tribunal observed that the payments to the individuals were part of the incentive payments to sub-distributors under the MAP Agreement. Since the assessee did not treat the receipt of incentive or payments to sub-distributors as income or expenses, respectively, the commission paid to the individuals was considered as part of the distributor payments. The Tribunal noted the lack of evidence regarding the services rendered by the individuals, which justified the disallowance. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision on this issue.

The Tribunal dismissed the other grounds not pressed by the assessee's representative, leading to the dismissal of both the assessee's and the Revenue's appeals.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates