1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available


2. New: βIn Favour Ofβ filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws β
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available


2. New: βIn Favour Ofβ filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws β
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>Tribunal decision upheld on excessive commission disallowance under Income-tax Act</h1> The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision to delete the disallowance of excessive commission paid by the assessee under section 40(A)(2) of the ... - Issues involved: Disallowance of excessive commission paid by the assessee u/s 40(A)(2) of the Income-tax Act.Summary:The assessee, engaged in manufacturing moulded plastic items, claimed to have paid commission to agents at 8.65%, disallowed by the Assessing Officer as excessive. The AO allowed deduction at 2.65% only. The CIT(A) later deleted the addition, which was affirmed by the Tribunal based on findings of nexus between expenditure and business, genuineness of expenditure, and absence of evidence of siphoning off money. Relying on precedent, the Tribunal held the AO's addition was unsustainable. The High Court upheld this view, stating that once nexus and genuineness were established, the assessing authority could not dictate the commission rate. The argument that undisclosed business activities affected commission payment was dismissed, as it did not prove non-payment or excessiveness of commission u/s 40(A)(2). No substantial question of law was found, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.