9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (4) TMI 136X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecame out of date - deduction allowed - Decided in favor of assessee. Regarding allowability of Commission - Held that:- The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) specifically found that the assessee had paid commissions in the past years also and the same had been allowed by the Assessing Officer in the previous years and the assessee had deducted 'Tax Deducted at Source' for commission payments and the commission had been paid to three agents who have brought business and added clients there was no justification for disallowance of commission - Deduction allowed - decided in favor of assessee. Valuation of work in progress - Certificate of Valuation - Held that:- The assessee had completed the projects in May and June 2006 and on th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has been allowed in earlier also, when the Assessing Officer was of the opinion that the assessee has to prove the commission payment has derived certain benefit. (C) Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in allowing the claim of the assessee stating that the valuation has been made on the basis of certificate given by the officer, when the Assessing Officer stated that no such certificate was filed during the assessment proceedings. So far as the first question is concerned, after going through the materials on record, we find that the assessee Company had done business of manufacturing 2D and 3D animation films, Ad films, Multimedia and had also done job work of animation films, Ad films and Multimedia. The ab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evious year relevant to the Assessment Year under the appeal, the assessee Company had written off the said amount by debiting Profit and Loss account as animation film, which was made in the year 2001, became out of date. Since it had no market value, we are of the view that in the fact and circumstances of the present case, both the authorities below rightly set-aside the order of the Assessing Officer of addition of the said amount and we find no reason to interfere with such decision. As regards the second question, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) specifically found that the assessee had paid commissions in the past years also and the same had been allowed by the Assessing Officer in the previous years and the assessee had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs.5 lakh made by the Assessing Officer merely on the basis of presumption and guessing without considering the sales bills made by the assessee in the next year could not be supported. It was pointed out that the total sales of five parties in addition to the work in process as shown by the assessee Company came to Rs.10,93,895=00 and against this, the assessee had valued its work in process at Rs.6,40,500=00. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was of the view that in such circumstances the assessee had valued the work in process correctly for the incomplete project. He pointed out that in respect of various projects the work had been completed ranging from 30% to 65% of the projects. For projects i.e. at Sr. Nos.1, 2, 6, 7 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
