9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 1024X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e is in manufacturing of Tractors, Trolleys, agricultural equipments, Municipal utilities etc. The main ground of appeal is against disallowance of ₹ 2,00,000/- for A.Y. 07-08 out of commission of ₹ 10,00,000/- paid to six persons u/s 40A(2)(b) of the IT Act ₹ 1,90,000/- for A.Y. 08-09 out of commission of ₹ 9,50,000/- paid to four persons u/s 40A(2)(b) of the IT Act. The A.O. noticed that there was a commission payment of ₹ 19,56,259/- for A.Y. 07-08 ₹ 92,92,394/- for A.Y. 08-09 to various persons including bank commission and charges. The assessee had paid commission to family members who are covered u/s 40A(2)(b) of the IT Act. Commission paid to following specified persons in A.Y. 07-08: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessment years. 3. Being aggrieved by the order of the A.O., the assessee filed first appeal before the CIT-XVI(A), Ahmedabad, who has dismissed the appeal. The finding of the ld. CIT (A) is as under: 5. The appellant has not given any evidence of any services being rendered neither during the assessment proceedings not during the appellate proceedings. The Hon. Supreme Court In the case of Laxmirattan Cotton Mills [73 ITR 634] , has stated that the burden of proving that services were rendered by the managing agents for earning the remuneration lay upon the company and If no reliable evidence was forthcoming the Tribunal was competent to reach the conclusion that It did. The recitals In the managing agency agreement which authorise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent of commission. The payments were made to them were reasonable for rendering their service to the firm. These persons had made continue efforts on inquiry and helped firm to get business at Jodhpur, Rajasthan, only because of that the assessee achieved a record turn over in the opening of branch at Rajasthan. Therefore, A.R. prayed to delete the addition whereas the ld. D.R. vehemently relied upon the order of the A.O. and CIT (A). He also relied upon Voltamp Transformers (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (1981) 129 ITR 105 (Guj) on reasonability of receivable of commission payments. 4. We have perused the order of the authorities below and heard the arguments from both the sides. Ld. Counsel for the assessee had not be able to put on record any evide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
