9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
The judgment involves three main issues: 1. Deduction of alleged commission payments as business expenditure u/s 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Existence of evidence for payments of mamool made by the assessee. 3. Sustainability of Appellate Tribunal's allowance of deduction without verifying the genuineness of the payment. Issue 1: Deduction of commission payments: The assessee, a stevedoring contractor, claimed deduction of commission payments made to ship crew, contending they were customary payments necessary for business operations. The ITO limited the deduction, treating it as entertainment expenditure. The AAC upheld this decision. On further appeal, the Tribunal found lack of details on cargo tonnage cleared, disallowing 15% of commission payments for each assessment year. The Tribunal estimated 15% as inadmissible to cover any inflation in the claim, deeming the remaining 85% admissible. The Tribunal's decision is now under review by the court. Issue 2: Evidence of mamool payments: The assessee had to obtain a "no damage" certificate from ship captains to claim bills, justifying the payments as necessary to maintain relationships with ship staff. The ITO acknowledged the inevitable nature of such expenditure in this trade. The Tribunal, while estimating the disallowance, considered the customary payment of about 25 paise for every tonnage cleared. Due to lack of proper records on tonnage cleared, the Tribunal restricted the disallowance to 15% of the claimed payments. The Tribunal's decision was based on the understanding of the nature of the business and the necessity of these payments. Issue 3: Genuineness of payments: The ITO did not dispute the genuineness of the payments, allowing a part as entertainment expenditure and disallowing the rest as per the law. The Tribunal did not find any evidence disputing the genuineness of the payments. As the question of entertainment expenditure was resolved, the focus shifted to whether the I.T. authorities disputed the payments' genuineness. Since there was no dispute raised by the ITO, the third question regarding the genuineness of the payment did not arise from the Tribunal's order. The first two questions were answered in favor of the assessee, entitling them to costs. This judgment clarifies the treatment of commission payments, the necessity of evidence for business expenditures, and the importance of establishing the genuineness of payments for tax deductions under the Income-tax Act, 1961.
|
