2019 (4) TMI 105 - HC - Income Tax

Accrual of income - Commission paid by the suppliers of the assessee to the different investment companies amounts to diversion of funds - Tribunal answered the issue in favour of the assessee - HELD THAT - Revenue has simultaneously assessed the assessee as well as the Company who received the commission from the supplier (with reference to protective assessment). As such, there is an attempt to make unlawful gain by the Revenue, which is not correct or sustainable. Similar challenge raised by the Revenue has already been considered by this Court 2019 (4) TMI 79 - KERALA HIGH COURT answering it against the Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge against 'Annexure F' order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for the assessment year 1996-97. Dispute over commission payment by supplier of raw materials to M/s. Sunrays Properties and Investments Private Limited.

Analysis:
The appeal before the High Court was filed by the Revenue challenging the 'Annexure F' order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for the assessment year 1996-97. The Tribunal had ruled in favor of the assessee regarding the payment of commission, which the Revenue considered as diversion of funds. The Revenue contended that the commission payment should be treated as income of the assessee, while the assessee argued that it was a legitimate business expense. The High Court noted that the dispute centered around the commission paid by the supplier to M/s. Sunrays Properties and Investments Private Limited. The Tribunal's decision was based on the understanding that the commission was part of regular business expenditure. The High Court observed that the two questions raised by the Revenue were closely linked, with the second question being incidental to the first. The Revenue had attempted a protective assessment by simultaneously assessing the assessee and the company receiving the commission, aiming for an unlawful gain, which was deemed unsustainable by the Court.

The High Court referenced a previous case where a similar challenge raised by the Revenue had been decided against them. The Court found no substantial question of law in the present case and dismissed the appeal accordingly. The judgment emphasized that the Tribunal's decision in favor of the assessee regarding the commission payment was upheld, and the attempt by the Revenue to treat it as income of the assessee was deemed unjustified. The Court's ruling reaffirmed the principle that business expenses incurred in the normal course of operations should not be treated as income subject to taxation.