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>Assessee's appeal dismissed by ITAT for commission and interest disallowance. Lack of evidence cited.</h1> <h3>BABA RAYON FABRICS PVT LTD. Versus INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(1). SURAT</h3> BABA RAYON FABRICS PVT LTD. Versus INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(1). SURAT - TMI Issues Involved:1. Disallowance of Commission.2. Disallowance of Interest.3. Miscellaneous - Charge of interest under section 234B of the Income Tax Act.Detailed Analysis:1. Disallowance of Commission:The assessee, a company engaged in trading yarn and high seas sales, had paid a commission of Rs. 17,20,403 to a firm (M/s Motilon Synthetics) where the directors of the assessee company had substantial interest. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed this payment under section 40A(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, as the firm did not engage in any activity other than the alleged high seas sales and had no other income except from the assessee. The AO concluded that no services were rendered by Motilon Synthetics and the payment was for extra commercial considerations. The CIT(A) upheld this disallowance, citing the lack of documentary evidence proving that services were rendered by Motilon Synthetics. The CIT(A) referenced the Supreme Court decisions in Lachiminarayan Madan Lal and Swadeshi Cotton Mills Ltd., which stated that mere existence of an agreement or payment of commission does not prove that services were rendered or that the payment was for business purposes. The ITAT also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the assessee failed to provide evidence of compliance with the conditions set out in the appointment letter and that Motilon Synthetics had not earned any commission from other parties, indicating it was not in the business of commission agency.2. Disallowance of Interest:The AO disallowed Rs. 79,692 out of the total interest of Rs. 5,57,130 paid by the assessee on borrowed funds from its sister concern, Motilon Synthetics, as the assessee had also given an interest-free advance to another sister concern, Baba Synthetics. The AO concluded that the borrowed funds were not utilized for business purposes. The CIT(A) upheld this disallowance, referencing the Supreme Court decision in S.A. Builders, which allows disallowance of interest if loans/advances are given without commercial expediency. The CIT(A) noted that the assessee failed to demonstrate any commercial expediency for giving interest-free loans to Baba Synthetics. The ITAT also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, as the assessee could not provide any material evidence to prove the commercial expediency of the interest-free loans.3. Miscellaneous - Charge of Interest under Section 234B:The CIT(A) did not consider the charge of interest under section 234B of the Income Tax Act. This issue was not adjudicated separately as it was deemed general and consequential in nature.Conclusion:The appeal of the assessee was dismissed, with the ITAT upholding the decisions of the AO and CIT(A) on both the disallowance of commission and interest. The ITAT found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s findings due to the lack of evidence provided by the assessee to substantiate their claims. The other grounds raised were not adjudicated as they were general and consequential. The order was pronounced in open court on 28.12.2012.
TaxTMI 