9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 742X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssment Year 2009-2010. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The learned CIT(A) has erred both in law and on the facts of the case in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 6,61,569/- out of commission expenses. 2. The learned CIT(A) has erred both in law and on the facts of the case in confirming the disallowance of consultancy expenses of Rs. 10,83,8337-. 3. Both the lower authorities have passed the orders without properly appreciating the fact and that they further erred in grossly ignoring various submissions, explanations and information submitted by the appellant from time to time which ought to have been considered before passing the impugned order. This action of the lower authorities is in clear breac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see before the Ld.CIT(A) submitted that it's a common prevailing practice to increase the business by way of getting references from the parties. By way of reference, the assessee gets vital business information which has been used to increase the turnover and therefore the commission expenses were incurred. 5.1 It was also submitted by the assessee that the commission expenses were paid to unrelated parties after deducting the TDS. Therefore, there cannot be any doubt on the genuineness of the expenses. 6. However, the Ld. CIT(A), disregarded the contention of the assessee by observing that the assessee failed to furnish the details about the services rendered by the commission agents. It was also pointed out by the Ld.CIT(A) that the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entary evidence that the expenses have been incurred wholly and inclusively for the purpose of the business. To our understanding the assessee has not justified the services rendered by the commission agent, therefore, we do not find any merit in the argument of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. Accordingly, we uphold the findings of the authorities below. Hence the ground of appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 11. The second issue raised by the assessee is that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance made by the AO for Rs. 10,86,833/- on account of consultancy expenses. 12. The assessee in the year under consideration has paid consultancy charges to the various parties as detailed under: Sr. No. Name of the Payee Amount ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y after considering the prevailing competition in the market. 14.2 However, the Ld. CIT(A), disregarded the contention of the assessee by holding that the assessee failed to furnish the necessary details about the services rendered by the consultants as discussed above. 14.3 Likewise, the identity of the parties to whom the consultancy expenses have been paid were not furnished. Therefore, the same has been confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). 15. Being aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee is in appeal before us. 16. The Ld. AR before us submitted that all the parties to whom the payments have been made for the advertisement/marketing consultancy are not related to the assessee and the payment has been made after deducting the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
