TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High Court upholds Revenue decision on deduction denial for Agro India payment, citing lack of evidence and commercial justification.</h1> <h3>Assam Pesticides And Agro Chemicals Versus Commissioner Of Income-Tax</h3> Assam Pesticides And Agro Chemicals Versus Commissioner Of Income-Tax - [1997] 227 ITR 846, 145 CTR 213, 96 TAXMANN 366 Issues Involved:The judgment addresses the following legal Issues:1. Whether the discount/commission paid by the assessee to Agro India was justified.2. Whether the agreement between the parties was genuine or a device to reduce income.3. Whether the existence of Agro India as a commission agent was valid for tax assessment purposes.Issue 1: Discount/Commission PaymentThe assessee claimed a deduction for discount payment to Agro India, a sister concern. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim, questioning the commercial consideration and business expediency. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) accepted the claim based on evidence of correspondence and voucher dates. However, the Appellate Tribunal reversed this decision, emphasizing the lack of services rendered by Agro India and no new business territories covered.Issue 2: Genuine AgreementThe Assessing Officer found the agreement to be sham, noting discrepancies in dates and the reconstitution of the firm. He concluded it was a device to reduce income without actual services. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) supported the genuineness of the agreement, but the Appellate Tribunal disagreed, reinstating the Assessing Officer's decision based on lack of evidence of services rendered.Issue 3: Existence of Agro IndiaThe Tribunal upheld the Assessing Officer's findings that no services were provided by Agro India or its partners, leading to the disallowance of the deduction. The High Court emphasized the onus of proof on the assessee to justify the payment for commercial reasons, highlighting the lack of evidence of services rendered. The Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, stating that the increase in business volume alone does not validate the payment without evidence of services.The High Court answered the first two questions in favor of the Revenue, affirming the Tribunal's decision. However, it declined to address the third question as it was deemed academic and not relevant to the main issue between the parties.
TaxTMI 