9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 19X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "Act"). Subsequently, based on the information received from Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Central Circle-2(1) Mumbai that during the F.Y. 2010-11, the assessee had received commission of Rs. 4,42,76,742/- from M/s. Royal Twinkle Star Club Pvt. Ltd. (for short RTSC) and M/s. Citrus Check-Inns P Ltd. (for short CCPL). It was also informed that during the course of assessment proceedings for A.Y. 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11 in the case of Anita L. Ghadge one of the clients of RTSC and CCPL expenses claimed were restricted to 70% of the total expenses and also could not furnish the details of expenses incurred and in many cases TDS was not deducted. Considering the above, the assessee also rece ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed 30% of the expenses claimed by the assessee to the extent of Rs. 56,10,669/-. 5. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Ld. CIT(A) considered the detailed submissions submitted by the assessee, for the sake of clarity it is reproduced below:- "6.1 The appellant Mr. Narayan Kotnis (hereinafter called assessee) is doing commission business and filing income tax returns and paying taxes regularly in time. The assessee has filed income tax return for assessment year 2011-12. The assessee has made Net Taxable Total Income of Rs. 2,47,92,575/- during the said assessment year. The ACIT has taken into account in addition the above income Rs. 56,10,669/- as disallowance of expenses. In the given case assessee had incurred e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for wholly and exclusively for the business, as per sec. 37 of Income Tax Act. 1961. Your appellant further plead that in the case of ITAT order, Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 21(3) vs. Anita Lahu Ghadge, approximately 40% net profit ratio accepted against approximately 10% net profit ratio offered by Anita L. Ghadge, and your appellant have showed 57% net profit ratio which was much higher than the case of Anita L. Ghadge. After considering this facts, appellant state that all expenses paid to parties is reasonable. Your appellant plead that TDS was not liable to be deducted, hence in the said expenses to be allowed considering the nature of business. Your appellant prays to consider the above facts and allow the whole claim of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9. With regard to merits of the case, Ld. AR submitted that Assessing Officer resorted to disallow 30% of the expenses merely relying on the case of Anita L. Ghadge (supra). He submitted that the facts of the Anita L. Ghadge (supra) case are distinguishable from the facts of the assessee case. In the case of Anita L. Ghadge (supra) she has declared only 10% of the gross revenue as the profit whereas the assessee has declared 56% of the gross revenue as Gross Profit. Therefore, assessee has declared considerable profit, therefore, by relying on such case disallowing 30% in the case of the assessee is unjustified. Further he submitted that in assessee's own case for the A.Y. 2012-13 the Assessing Officer assessed the income u/s. 143(3) of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
