9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 498X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... side i.e. upto 26.12 and for some of the years slightly on lower side i.e. upto 23.14. This process adopted by Assessee was found genuine and bona fide by CIT (Appeals) (hereinafter referred to as "CIT(A)"), and, thus, in appeal, it reversed findings of Assessing Officer of addition of ₹ 1,51,000/-. The Assessing Officer took the view that valuation of stock should have been on highest profit rate, but this view taken by Assessing Officer has not been found reasonable and, hence, reversed by CIT (A). The Tribunal has concurred with the view taken by CIT (A) and has confirmed the order passed by CIT (A). This is a concurrent finding of fact recorded by CIT (A) and Tribunal. In absence of any patent illegality or arbitrariness shown the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Repeatedly we asked from learned counsel appearing for Revenue as to what kind of technical qualification in the nature of business Assessee was doing, was expected from Sri R.N. Yadav, to which he could give no reply. Once it is admitted that under the head of 'quality control expenses' the aforesaid amount was actually paid and the person concerned admitted to have received the same, we do not find that Tribunal has erred in law in affirming the decision of disallowance of ₹ 4,42,592/-. Moreover, here also, concurrent finding has been recorded by both the authorities below which could not be shown perverse in any manner. - Decided against Revenue. Disallowance of commission paid in respect of sales made to the Government ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... come at the instance of Revenue. While admitting it on 18.7.2007, the Court formulated following four substantial questions of law: (1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in upholding the action of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) in deleting the addition of ₹ 1,51,000/- made to the assessee's income on account of discrepancy in the valuation of closing stock? (2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in upholding the action of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) in deleting the addition of ₹ 7,01,537/- made on account of valuation of closing stock being the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 26.12 and for some of the years slightly on lower side i.e. upto 23.14. This process adopted by Assessee was found genuine and bona fide by Commissioner, Income Tax (Appeals) (hereinafter referred to as CIT(A) ), and, thus, in appeal, it reversed findings of Assessing Officer of addition of ₹ 1,51,000/-. The Assessing Officer took the view that valuation of stock should have been on highest profit rate, but this view taken by Assessing Officer has not been found reasonable and, hence, reversed by CIT (A). The Tribunal has concurred with the view taken by CIT (A) and has confirmed the order passed by CIT (A). This is a concurrent finding of fact recorded by CIT (A) and Tribunal. In absence of any patent illegality or arbitrariness sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g, was expected from Sri R.N. Yadav, to which he could give no reply. Once it is admitted that under the head of 'quality control expenses' the aforesaid amount was actually paid and the person concerned admitted to have received the same, we do not find that Tribunal has erred in law in affirming the decision of disallowance of ₹ 4,42,592/-. Moreover, here also, concurrent finding has been recorded by both the authorities below which could not be shown perverse in any manner. Question no. 3 is, therefore, answered against Revenue and in favour of Assessee. 5. Now coming to question no. 4, it is evident from record that a sum of ₹ 17,39,330/- was actually paid towards commission for procuring Government Orders, i.e., ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which is lawfully due to him at an early date in order to enable him to use the same in his business, utilises the services of a third person or a middle man, it cannot be said that the expenditure has not been laid out for the purpose of business. Moreover, the nature of expenditure has to be seen from the view point of the assessee and the Assessing Officer has neither the expertise of running a business nor has any specialisation to sit in judgment over the assessee as to whether such an expenditure was incurred for commercial expediency or not. Apart from it, there is no provision to disallow a part of such expenditure on the ground of excessiveness when the expenditure has been found to be genuine. 6. It is not the case of Revenue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
