9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 1398X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cts cannot be said to be perverse in any manner. Further, in any view of the matter the percentage of disallowance of expenses on the basis of estimate which is a plausible estimate, no substantial question of law would arise. Thus, both the appeals do not merit consideration. - INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 506 OF 2016 WITH INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 562 OF 2016 - - - Dated:- 17-12-2018 - AKIL KURESHI M.S. SANKLECHA, JJ. Mr. Ashok Kotangle a/w Ms. Padma Divakar for the Appellant P.C.: 1. These two appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act ( the Act for short) challenge the common order dated 23.1.2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( the Tribunal for short). The common impugned order relates to A.Ys. 2007-08 a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r of the Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. However, without any success. The said appeal was dismissed by CIT(A) by order dated 21.1.2013. 7. On further appeal, the Tribunal found that the authorities under the Act had doubted the genuineness of the services rendered by the sub-brokers and had disallowed the entire expenditure of ₹ 1.78 crores attributed to it. However, the Tribunal noted that the respondent did file affidavit explaining the transactions. However, the same was rejected to be a self serving document by the assessing officer. Nevertheless, the Tribunal found that the sub-brokers are more or less common for the assessment years 2007-08 to 2009-10. The Tribunal further found that in those years, the genuineness of the exp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penses claimed by the assessee in its books of accounts. We further note that that there is no dispute regarding genuineness of the expenses. The only issue with respect of percentage of expenses to be disallowed on account of payment made to the sub-brokers. We find that considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal not accepting 20% disallowance and limiting the disallowance to 10% in these facts cannot be said to be perverse in any manner. Further, in any view of the matter the percentage of disallowance of expenses on the basis of estimate which is a plausible estimate, no substantial question of law would arise. Thus, both the appeals do not merit consideration. 10. Accordingly, both the appeals are dismissed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
