Tribunal allows Revenue's appeal on commission, damaged goods, foreign travel expenses

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Versus G SHOE EXPORT

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Versus G SHOE EXPORT - TMI Issues:
1. Disallowance of commission expenses
2. Claim for damaged goods
3. Disallowance relating to foreign travel expenses

Disallowance of Commission Expenses:
The appeal involved the Revenue challenging the decision of the CIT(A) regarding additions made by the Assessing Officer, specifically commission expenses, claim for damaged goods, and foreign traveling expenses. The Revenue contended that the assessee did not provide proof of services rendered by commission agents and did not deduct TDS from commission payments. The CIT(A) partially confirmed the addition related to foreign traveling expenses. The dispute centered on whether commission payments were made to non-resident agents and the requirement for TDS deduction. The CIT(A) relied on circulars in force during the assessment year to support the assessee's position. The issue was further debated regarding additional evidence submitted by the assessee and the applicability of relevant circulars. The tribunal set aside the CIT(A) order and directed the Assessing Officer to re-examine the matter considering all evidence.

Claim for Damaged Goods:
The Revenue challenged the deletion of disallowance related to damaged goods by the CIT(A) due to new evidence not confronted to the Assessing Officer. The tribunal decided to remand the issue back to the AO for fresh examination, including any additional evidence presented by the assessee. The AO was directed to seek further explanations and information to make a decision in accordance with the law.

Disallowance Relating to Foreign Travel Expenses:
The dispute involved the assessee's deduction claim for foreign travel expenses, which the AO fully disallowed for lack of detailed justification. The CIT(A) found personal elements involved and restricted the disallowance to 10% of the claim. The parties contested the decision, with the Revenue arguing lack of business necessity for the travel and inclusion of expenses for family members. The assessee defended the expenses, especially for a family member assisting in business-related activities during the trips. The tribunal found the need for further examination of the claim, especially regarding participation in shoe fairs and the role of the family member in the trips. The tribunal remanded the issue to the AO for a fresh examination, considering all materials and evidence provided by the assessee, to decide in accordance with the law.

In conclusion, the tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the Revenue and the cross objection filed by the assessee for statistical purposes, with the orders pronounced on May 28, 2014.