9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 603X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unter the findings of the facts recorded by the ld.CIT(A). Hence, we are inclined to uphold the findings of ld.CIT(A) and reject the ground taken by the Revenue. Disallowance of commission expenses u/s.37 - HELD THAT:- Assessee has paid commission to M/s. Credila Financial Services Pvt. Ltd., which is in commensurate with volume of business generated from them. The assessee has also filed necessary evidences to prove genuineness of payment and nexus between expenditure and business of the assessee by filing various evidences including Form 16 issued to the party for deduction of TDS on said payment. CIT(A) after considering relevant facts has rightly deleted addition made by the AO towards disallowance of commission expenditure. The Revenue neither bring on record any evidence to prove that expenditure incurred under the head commission expenditure is not genuine nor counter the findings of fact recorded by the ld.CIT(A). Therefore, we are of the considered view that there is no error in the findings recorded by the CIT(A) and hence, we are inclined to uphold the order of the CIT(A) and reject the ground taken by the Revenue. Adhoc disallowance of miscellaneous expenses - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iture incurred and the business of the assessee. 3.2 The CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that the AO made the disallowance u/s.37 of the Act for the reason that the assessee could not prove that the said commission expenditure was incurred for business purposes. 3.3 The CIT(A) failed to call for the remand report from the AO while allowing an amount of ₹ 1,92,00,725/- based on the submissions of the assessee which was not submitted before the AO during course of scrutiny proceedings, which is in violation of provisions of Rule 46A. 4.1 The CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to delete the disallowance of miscellaneous expenses of ₹ 32,60,000/- by holding that it was a normal routine expenses incurred in the course of business. 4.2 The CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that the assessee had not produced any vital evidence i.e., bills/documents and details in support of its claim, which were expended wholly and exclusively for business purpose. 5. For these and other grounds that may be adduced at the time of hearing, it is prayed that the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) be set aside and that of the Assessi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee has paid interest on said loan of ₹ 17,73,555/- and has also deducted TDS at the rate of 10% and remitted to Government account. The AO has made addition on the ground that the assessee has failed to prove the genuineness of unsecured loan. It was the explanation of the assessee before the lower authorities that identity of the creditor is satisfied and genuineness of the loan is also not in dispute because the loan has been taken from shareholder of the company whose credentials have been furnished to the AO. 4.1 We have heard both the parties, perused materials available on record and gone through orders of the authorities below. We find from the order of the ld.CIT(A) that the loan has been taken from shareholder of the company, that means the identity of the creditor is not disputed by the AO. As regards, genuineness of the transaction, loan has been taken through bank and part of loan has been repaid through cheque. The assessee had also paid interest after deducting applicable TDS. Therefore, there is no reason for doubting the genuineness of transaction. As regards, creditworthiness of the creditor, the assessee has filed necessary evidences to discharge cr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ervices Pvt. Ltd., under AD-II category authorized by RBI. It is also not in dispute that the assessee has paid commission to M/s. Credila Financial Services Pvt. Ltd., which is in commensurate with volume of business generated from them. The assessee has also filed necessary evidences to prove genuineness of payment and nexus between expenditure and business of the assessee by filing various evidences including Form 16 issued to the party for deduction of TDS on said payment. The ld.CIT(A) after considering relevant facts has rightly deleted addition made by the AO towards disallowance of commission expenditure. The Revenue neither bring on record any evidence to prove that expenditure incurred under the head commission expenditure is not genuine nor counter the findings of fact recorded by the ld.CIT(A). Therefore, we are of the considered view that there is no error in the findings recorded by the CIT(A) and hence, we are inclined to uphold the order of the CIT(A) and reject the ground taken by the Revenue. 6. The next issue that came up for our consideration from Ground No.4 of Revenue appeal is adhoc disallowance of miscellaneous expenses amounting to ₹ 32,60,000/-. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
