9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 966X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he question as proposed does not raise any substantial question of law. - Decided in favour of assessee. Commission paid to related parties - TDS deduction - Tribunal deleted the addition - Held that:- This issue of payment of commission, concurrent finding of fact arrived between the CIT(A) and the Tribunal holding that the commission as claimed had been paid. The view taken by the Tribunal is a plausible view and the same has not been shown to be perverse.- Decided in favour of assessee. Disallowance towards cash expenses - Tribunal allowed part relief - Held that:- We find that the CIT(A) and the Tribunal have reached concurrent findings of fact in restricting the disallowance to the extent of 10% of the cash expenditure. This res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ade by the Assessing Officer for no services having been substantiated regarding Commission of ₹ 9,23,654/- paid to related parties merely because it was paid by cheque and TDS was deducted? 3) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the order of the Tribunal was not perverse in restricting the disallowance towards cash expenses by AO to ₹ 25,00,000/- out of ₹ 37,63,853/- without appreciating the facts of the case and without appreciating the fact of non existence of supporting vouchers? 3. Regarding Question No.1: (a) The respondent-assessee had withdrawn ₹ 60 lakhs in excess of the amount available in the bank and therefore paid interest on the same. Out of the aforesaid a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s been incurred on account of commercial expenditure, then even if there is no legal obligation to incur it, the same is to be allowed. In the above view, the question as proposed does not raise any substantial question of law. Accordingly Question (1) as proposed is not entertained. 4. Regarding Question No.2: (a) For the subject assessment year, the Assessing Officer disallowed the commission in the aggregate of ₹ 9.23 lakhs constituted of the the commission of ₹ 8.96 lakhs paid to Dinesh Samdhani and ₹ 27,450/- paid to M/s Siddi Metal Corporation. This commission was disallowed by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the respondentassessee had not substantiated with evidence, the factum of payment of the co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The expenses incurred in cash were allowed on account of transportation charges, salary and wages, coolie and cartage, vehicle maintenance, traveling expenses, etc. which are generally paid in cash. The Assessing Officer was of the view that the cash expenditure claimed by the respondent-assessee could not be relied upon as they are supported only on the basis of self made vouchers. Therefore, the Assessing Officer concluded that the respondent could not prove genuineness of the expenditure. In the circumstances, out of total cash of ₹ 37.60 lakhs claimed as expenditure to Assessing Officer by order under Section 143(3) of the Act had disallowed an ad-hoc amount of ₹ 25 lakhs. (b) In the appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed the dis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
