9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 586X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dingly do not see any infirmity in the order of the lower authorities. Further, we have gone through the decisions relied upon by the AR and find that the same does not support the case of the assessee as the same were rendered in their peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. - decided against assessee. Disallowance of commission paid to the assessee’s son - Held that:- In absence of demonstrating through verifiable evidence that Shri Ashish Mantri has rendered the service in connection with earning of the commission income by the assessee and in absence of the necessary nexus between the earning of income and rendering of services, no infirmity in disallowance of the commission payment to Mr Ashish Mantri and confirm the findings ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore us. 3. Regarding Ground No. 1 wherein the AO has disallowed interest paid on unsecured loan, the ld. AR has contended that the assessee has earned remuneration from M/s Shree Maheshwari Marble and interest from M/s Mantri Marble Industries wherein he is a partner and since the loan was invested in the partnership firm, interest and remuneration earned from such firm was offered to tax. Therefore, the interest expense to the extent should be allowed. In support, reliance was placed on the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in case of ACIT vs. Novel Enterprises [2012] reported in 22 taxmann.com 116) and Delite Enterprises (P.) Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1)(2), Mumbai [2008] reported in 22 SOT 245. 4. It was further submitted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd find that the same does not support the case of the assessee as the same were rendered in their peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. In the result, ground no. 1 of the assessee s appeal is dismissed. 6. In ground No. 2 regarding disallowance of commission paid to the assessee s son Mr. Ashish Mantri, the ld. AR has contended as under:- 1. In this regard we may submit that the appellant got the work from M/s Tileco Pvt. Ltd., for export of marble blocks to Guangdong Yunfu zingyun foreign. China. The appellant outsource such work to Mr. Ashish Mantri who was having knowledge of import export matters. The facts have been confirmed by Mr. Ashish Mantri. The appellant received commission of ₹ 4,16,000/- from M/s Ti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmission income of ₹ 4,16,000/- the assessee has claimed expenses under the head other expenses of ₹ 3,58,500/-. The assessee was asked to furnish details of this expenditure. The AIR furnished Profit Loss A/c which reflected that expenditure amounting to ₹ 3,12,000/- was incurred as commission payment, ₹ 24,000/- as salary and ₹ 22,500/- as traveling expenses. (312000 + 24000 + 22500 = 358500). It was noticed that a sum of ₹ 312000/- was claimed to be paid to his son Shr i Ashish Mant ri as Commission against earning commission income. The assessee was asked to substantiate his claim and produce Shri Ashish Mantri for verification. The assessee furnished his reply through his A/R on 1/12/2015 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onfirmed the fact that commission was paid to Shri Ashok Mantri (the assessee) for helping them in purchase of marble block which was exported to China. However, the story of the assessee reflected that all affairs at China were managed by his son Shri Ashish Mantri and thus commission was paid to him. Looking to this contradiction, the assessee was asked to produce the copy of passport. It was noticed that the visa/passport reflect the purpose of visit to China during this F.Y. as 'F'. F visa is issued to those who intend to go to China for research. lecture, scientific, cultural exchange and study tour. Thus, it is a non-commerical visa. The AR was asked to produce Shri Ashish Mantri for verification. Despite repeated request ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3,12,000/- paid by the appellant to Shri Ashish Mantri the son of the appellant. Accordingly, the disallowance of ₹ 3,12,000/- made by the AO is hereby confirmed. 9. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. In absence of demonstrating through verifiable evidence that Shri Ashish Mantri has rendered the service in connection with earning of the commission income by the assessee and in absence of the necessary nexus between the earning of income and rendering of services, we do not see any infirmity in disallowance of the commission payment to Mr Ashish Mantri and confirm the findings of the authorities below which remain uncontroverted before us. In the result ground No. 2 of the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
