9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 737X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal for A.Y 2011-12 against the order of the ld. CIT(A) - 9, New Delhi dated 30.09.2019. 2. Since the cross appeals and appeal were heard together, they are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 3. At the very outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee moved an application seeking permission to withdraw the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No. 9127/DEL/2019. Noting the contents of the application, the said appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. 4. The impugned two appeals by the revenue have common ground relating to deletion of addition on account of disallowance of commission on sales, though the quantum of disallowance differs in both the years. 5. Since the underlying facts are common in both ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and fellow subsidiaries got covered under section 40A(2)(b) effective from A.Y 2013-14. 8. It was further explained that the payments have been made on the basis of debit notes received by the assessee and there is no difference between the invoice and debit note. It was also contended that payment of commission is on the basis of percentage to turn over and is never on the basis of percentage to gross profit. 9. After considering the facts and submissions, the ld. CIT(A) was of the opinion that adhoc disallowance of any expenditure is not permissible and the Assessing Officer has to give specific findings as to the effect that either the expenditure is not supported with bills/vouchers or not recorded in the books of account or it is bo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the difference and on receiving no plausible reply, the Assessing Officer made the addition of Rs. 1,31,78,278/-. 16. Before the ld. CITA, the assessee strongly contended that, in fact, there is no difference and furnished re-conciliation. It was also brought to the notice of the ld. CIT(A) that the Assessing Officer has not gone through the Schedule 11 of Financial statement wherein the entire reconciliation has been provided. 17. After scrutinizing the details furnished by the assessee, the ld. CIT(A) was convinced that no sales have been made outside the books and there is no difference between the turnover as shown in the VAT Return and as shown in the financial statements. 18. Being satisfied, the ld. CIT(A) deleted the impug ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was asked to reconcile the difference. As per the reconciliation filed by the assessee, the Assessing Officer found that there is a credit amount given by Reebok India Co. Ltd to the assessee amounting to Rs. 54,41,961/-, which has not been shown by the assessee. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer added the amount of Rs. 54,41,961/- to the income of the assessee. 25. Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee explained that when sale invoice is raised by Reebok, and no goods have been received by the assessee, then, on informing Reebok India Co Ltd, the same was corrected by them in their books of account, and the assessee did not pass any entry in its books of account. It was explained that it is because of this Reebok India Co. Ltd ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
