2016 (6) TMI 1038

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... o why the income of a sum earned by the assessee on account of commission should not have been treated to have been earned from business or profession. He is also unable to show as to why the expenditure was not admissible, whereas the order passed by the learned Tribunal concurring with the views of the CIT(A) is a well reasoned order. - Decided against the revenue. - ITA 326 of 2009 - - - Date .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ssment were not traceable. But the fact remained that they had before making payment to the assessee deducted the tax at source. The Assessing Officer was of the opinion that the receipt of a sum of ₹ 38,38,575/- should be treated to have been earned by the assessee under the other heads of income. The Assessing Officer also disallowed an expenditure of a sum of ₹ 75,922/-. Aggrieve .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... is justified in law in confirming the order of the CIT (A) holding that the commission of ₹ 38,38,575/- should be assessed under the head income from business or profession and by deleting the disallowance of proportionate expenses of ₹ 75,922/-. Mr. Sinha, learned advocate appearing for the revenue, was unable to point out any infirmity in the views expressed by the learned Tri .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X