9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 394X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... distribution of incentives is not denied - The arrangement has not been held to be non-genuine or sham – thus, there is no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) – Decided against Revenue. - ITA No. 1698/Del/2012 - - - Dated:- 30-4-2014 - Shri R. P. Tolani And Shri D. K. Srivastava,JJ. For the Appellant : Shri Satpal Singh Sr. DR For the Respondent : Shri Arvind Kumar Nair CA ORDER Per R. P. Tolani, J.M: This is revenue s appeal against the order of CIT(A)-XXIII, New Delhi dated 16-12-2011 relating to A.Y. 2008-09. Sole ground raised is as under: On the facts and on the circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 81,39,639/- 2. Facts in brief are: The AO received AIR info ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the income of the assessee. The addition was made. 2.2. Aggrieved, assessee preferred first appeal where it was pleaded that KBPL was a leading liquor distributor in the state of Orissa. The distribution involved various sales personnel to promote the sale which was incentive linked. In past KBPL realized that the incentive amounts could not reach the recipient in time which created problems in the business. So, an agency was hired in the form of the assessee proprietary concern M/s Zebaish to distribute the incentives and insure the same. For such services the assessee was engaged for a remuneration of Rs. lacs per annum. In discharge of services, assessee had to collect the data of sales from sale depot personnel, correlate the sam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e bank account of M/s Zebaish and with the bank statement of M/s KBPL. The ledger account of the reimbursements shows that n teen a rupee is retained out of Rs. 81,39,639/-. I am unable to agree with the Assessing officer that the disbursal is not verifiable, as acknowledgment of receipts has been maintained in respect of each payment. Moreover, claiming credit for the tax deducted does not make the appellant bound to pay tax on these receipts, unless such receipts constitute income in his hands. The alternative argument is also not without merit, namely that if the receipts are considered taxable in his case, then he must be granted deduction of the matching expenditure. After considering all the above facts, the addition made of undiscl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
