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>Court Disallows Salary & Commission Expenses, Directs Verification by AO</h1> <h3>M/s. Brainstreet Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Versus Income Tax Officer</h3> M/s. Brainstreet Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Versus Income Tax Officer - TMI Issues Involved:1. Disallowance of salary payments.2. Disallowance of commission expenses.3. Classification of income as 'Business Income' vs. 'Income from Other Sources.'4. Disallowance of other expenses (administrative and rent expenses).Detailed Analysis:1. Disallowance of Salary Payments:The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed the claim of salary payments amounting to Rs. 24,04,200/-, with the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] confirming the disallowance of Rs. 18,17,200/-. The AO's disallowance was based on the lack of substantiation of services provided by the employees, with specific reference to one Shri Anirudh Singhal, who allegedly returned Rs. 1,00,000/- out of his salary. The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance to the extent of the returned amount and the salary claimed for Shri Pawan Kumar, who denied working for the company. The CIT(A) directed the AO to verify the genuineness of salary payments made by cheque.2. Disallowance of Commission Expenses:The AO disallowed commission expenses of Rs. 5,79,800/- on the grounds that the commission agents did not provide any services to the assessee company, as evidenced by their inability to recall details of transactions. The CIT(A) upheld this disallowance, citing the lack of evidence and proper agreements to substantiate the commission payments.3. Classification of Income:The AO classified the income of Rs. 37,09,000/- received from M/s Sarthak Metals Marketing Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Bhayana Builders Pvt. Ltd. as 'Income from Other Sources' instead of 'Business Income,' asserting that no services were provided. The CIT(A) reversed this classification, noting that both companies had confirmed the commission payments and provided transaction details. The CIT(A) found no evidence to support the AO's conclusion that the transactions were sham.4. Disallowance of Other Expenses:The AO disallowed other expenses amounting to Rs. 2,21,646/- due to the lack of supporting bills and agreements. The CIT(A) provided partial relief, allowing director's remuneration and administrative expenses based on the evidence produced. However, the CIT(A) upheld the disallowance of rent expenses due to the absence of a rent agreement and the payment being made in cash, directing the AO to verify the claim supported by bank statements.Separate Judgments:The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the classification of income as 'Business Income' and the disallowance of commission expenses. However, the ITAT remitted the issue of other expenses back to the AO for fresh consideration, directing the AO to re-examine the detailed submissions of the assessee.Conclusion:The appeals by both the Assessee and the Revenue were allowed for statistical purposes, with specific directions for the AO to re-evaluate the claims related to other expenses, excluding commission expenses. The ITAT's order emphasized a thorough reassessment of the evidence and submissions provided by the assessee.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
