9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 1550X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on by the assessee before us. On perusal of the aforesaid decisions we find that the Tribunal had directed that the income by way of commission from the business of accommodation entries being carried out by Mukesh Choksi group was liable to be assessed at 0.15% instead of 2% applied by the Assessing Officer. Since it was a common point between the parties that the appellant company before us is also a part of the entities controlled by Mr. Mukesh Choksi, in our view, the aforesaid decisions are relevant to assess the income of the assessee. In this view of the matter, we, therefore, set-aside the order of the CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to recompute the commission income from the business of providing accommodation entry in con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the order of D.C.I.T, Central Circle-46. 2. The learned. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and in facts in not appreciating the fact that the order is passed by the assessing officer without providing sufficient opportunity of hearing to the appellant. 3. The learned. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and in facts in not appreciating the fact that no evidence of the valid satisfaction has been brought on record before the issue of notice u/s 153C of the Act. 4. The learned, commission of Income Tax (Appeals) have erred in law and in facts in confirming the additions made under the Act amounting to ₹ 57,56,977/- 5. The learned. Commissioner of Inco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l in the cases of the sister concerns of assessee company and in this context, reference has been made to the following decisions:- (i) Goldstar Finvest Pvt. Ltd. ITA Nos.887/Mum/2012 & 2699/Mum/2013 order dated 30/11/2015. (ii) M/s. Mihir Agencies Pvt. Ltd., ITA Nos.6114-6120/Mum/2012 order dated 6/1/2016. (iii) Alliance Intermediateries and Network Pvt. Ltd., ITA Nos. 2700,2702&2701/Mum/2013 order dated 24/2/2016. (iv) Mr. Mukesh Choksi ITA Nos.833 -839/Mum/2013 order dated 04/05/2016. 5. In brief, the background of the dispute is that a search and seizure action under section 132(1) of the Act was conducted in the case of several companies, whose kingpin is identified as one Mr. Mukesh Choksi. It was found in the course of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sions, the Tribunal has accepted the stand of the assessee that commission income was liable to be assessed @0.15% of the total receipts and also the fact that the net income was to be assessed after allowing 50% of the expenses claimed. It was, therefore, contended that following the decisions of the Co-ordinate Benches rendered in the group concerns of Shri Mukesh Choksi referred above under similar circumstances, the assessed income in this case also be directed to be computed accordingly. 7. On the other hand, Ld. Departmental Representative while not disputing the aforesaid precedents, sought to point out that the other cases were assessed on the basis of the surveys conducted, whereas the instant assessee was covered by the search a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by us that identical issue had came up before the Tribunal in assessee's own case for the assessment year 2002-03. The relevant observations from the Tribunal's order are reproduced below: "12. Having, carefully examined the various orders in the case of different assessees' it has become amply clear that in these types of activities, brokers are only concerned with their commission on the value of transactions. Now the question comes what would be the reasonable percentage to the commission on the total turnover? The assessee has also made out a case that the customers do not come directly to him and they come through a sub- broker who also charges a particular share of commission. In all the judgments what has been stated i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issue has been unanimously accepted by the Tribunal in various cases including the case of assessee. Nothing has been brought on record by the ld. DR to distinguish these cases. Therefore, respectfully following the orders of the Tribunal including the order of Tribunal in assessee's own case in the immediately preceding year, we find that the ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition, no interference is called for in the order of ld. CIT(A), therefore, the same is upheld. Grounds No.1 and 2 taken by the Revenue stand dismissed." 9.1 Since it was a common point between the parties that the appellant company before us is also a part of the entities controlled by Mr. Mukesh Choksi, in our view, the aforesaid decisions are relevant to ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
