9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 236X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h the order of the ld. CIT (A). Commission payment - AO disallowed the amount holding that it was the provision towards commission and therefore not an ascertained liability - CIT ( A) found that the commission payment was not a provision but paid on the basis of bills dated 02.04.2013 - HELD THAT:- Since, the commission amount was an ascertained liability and paid for the services rendered. TDS was also deducted on the commission payment and hence the ld. CIT ( A) taking into consideration, the entire facts allowed the deduction. Since, no contrary material has been brought before us, we decline to interfere with order of the ld. CIT ( A). Disallowance u/s 14A under Rule 8D( ii) and 8D( iii) - Suo moto disallowance made by assessee - A.Y. 2014- 15 - HELD THAT:- The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investments Ltd.[ 2018 (3) TMI 805 - SUPREME COURT] has obliterated the distinction between investment in the subsidiaries or otherwise. Hence, the matter is referred back to the Assessing Officer for re- computation of the disallowance u/s 14 A, keeping in view the judgment of Hon ble Apex Court and the amended provisions of the Act existing at the time of completion of asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting addition of ₹ 2, 32, 976/- made by the A.O. on account of provision towards commission." 3. In ITA No. 9395/Del/2017, following grounds have been raised by the assessee: "1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT( A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in making disallowance of ₹ 8, 73, 86, 301/- on account of 'Brand Image Expenses' claimed by the assessee in the computation of income by treating it as unjustified and unreasonable and that too without any basis and by recording incorrect facts and findings and without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case and in violation of principles of natural justice and without considering the submissions filed by the assessee. 2. That in any case and in any view of the matter, action of Ld. CIT( A) in confirming the action of Ld. AO in making disallowance of ₹ 8, 73,86, 301/- on account of 'Brand Image Expenses', is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT( A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eves a sales target of 500 metric tonne of steel tubes, such dealer would be entitled for one ticket to Paris. In case, a dealer achieves target of 750 metric tonne such dealer is entitled for one ticket to Australia and two tickets in case of 1500 M.T. of the steel tubes.. As per the scheme, three groups consisting of 272 persons, 251 persons and 157 persons were taken to Malaysia and 20 persons who have been taken to Australia. The assessee has incurred an expenditure of ₹ 6,54,32,452/-. 6. The ld. CIT ( A) examined the bills raised by the assessee of Dewan Travels Pvt. Ltd. which are as under: Sl. No. Date Amount 1. 17.09.2011 ₹ 20,48,705 /- 2. 04.04.2012 ₹ 2,53,17,202/- 3. 26.05.2012 ₹ 1,46,54,700/- 4. 19.07.2012 ₹ 2,34,11,845/- 7. The ld. CIT (A) found that the bill dated 17.09.2011 for an amount of ₹ 20, 48,705/- pertain to the assessment year 2012- 13, hence, disallowed the expenditure to that extent and allowed the remaining expenditure being the amount spent during the year. The disallowance of ₹ 20,48, 705/- has not been contested by the assessee. The ld. CIT ( A) has also verified the list of dealers an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... restricting the total disallowance to the exempt income earned. 15. The relevant facts: Assessment Year: 2014-15 Date of Assessment Order: 31.12.2017 Date of amendment in Rule 8 D(2 ) w.e.f.: 02.06.2016 16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investments Ltd. Vs CIT 91 Taxman 154 has obliterated the distinction between investment in the subsidiaries or otherwise. 17. Hence, the matter is referred back to the Assessing Officer for re- computation of the disallowance u/s 14 A, keeping in view the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court and the amended provisions of the Act existing at the time of completion of assessment. Brand Image Expenses: 18. The AO has computed the breakup of Brand Image expenses as under:- S. No. Expenditure Incurred (Nature) Amount (Rs.) 1. Singapore Star Cruise Trips ( Dealers & Distributors) of 100 Persons 8,81,98,856.00 2. Tour and Travel Package for Dealers and Distributors under various Schemes 80,18,675.00 3. Sales Promotion Scheme for Dealers Meet Expenses 51,87,439.00 4. Marketing Tour & Travel, Salary of Marketing Department ( Branding), Printing and Designing of Flex Boards, Wall Painting, T- Shirts and other ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
