Just a moment...

Top
Help
🎉 Festive Offer: Flat 15% off on all plans! →⚡ Don’t Miss Out: Limited-Time Offer →
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By:
RelevanceDefaultDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Tribunal allows appeal partially, upholding disallowance of brokerage payment. Importance of accurate details emphasized.</h1> <h3>Smt. Puja C. Khandelwal Versus Asstt. Director of Income Tax Mumbai</h3> The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, upholding the disallowance of Rs. 61,71,082 out of the total brokerage payment of Rs. 89,19,677. The assessee ... Addition towards deduction claimed on account of payment of brokerage - neither the assessee could prove the genuineness of such payment, nor any of the parties to whom such brokerage payments was made responded to the notices issued under section 133(6) - Held that:- When the assessee was not only assisted by a professional well acquainted with provisions of the Act, not only before the AO in the course of remand proceeding but also before the first appellate authority. Assessee has not retracted her statement given under section 131 at any stage. In these circumstances, we are unable to accept assessee’s claim with regard to dismissal of its ground against brokerage payment by the learned Commissioner (Appeals). When the assessee was not only assisted by a professional well acquainted with provisions of the Act, not only before the Assessing Officer in the course of remand proceeding but also before the first appellate authority. Assessee has not retracted her statement given under section 131 at any stage. In these circumstances, we are unable to accept assessee’s claim with regard to dismissal of its ground against brokerage payment by the Commissioner (Appeals). Having held so, we proceed to examine assessee’s alternative claim, if at all, any disallowance is to be made it should be restricted to ₹ 61,71,082. As far as the quantum of disallowance is concerned, we find merit in the submissions of the learned counsel. As could be seen in the remand report, the Assessing Officer on the basis of statement recorded from the parties as well as other information had accepted that brokerage payment to the tune of ₹ 61,71,082 to be non–genuine and recommended for addition of the said amount. On a perusal of the impugned order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals), it is noticed that in letter dated 29th August 2013, filed by the assessee, she had accepted that brokerage payment to the tune of ₹ 61,71,082 are actually accommodation entries. In view of the aforesaid factual position, which is also accepted by the Assessing Officer in the remand report, we are of the considered opinion that out of the total brokerage payment of ₹ 89,19,677, an amount of ₹ 61,71,082 deserves to be disallowed being non–genuine as per the facts and material available on record. Thus, assessee gets relief of ₹ 27,48,595. - decided partly in favour of assessee. Issues:Challenge to addition of brokerage payment deduction.Analysis:1. The appeal was against the addition of Rs. 89,19,677 towards deduction claimed for brokerage payment. The Assessing Officer found discrepancies in the brokerage payment details provided by the assessee during the assessment proceedings.2. The assessee initially failed to provide satisfactory details regarding the parties to whom brokerage was paid and the nature of services rendered. Subsequently, during the remand proceedings, the assessee admitted that certain brokerage payments were accommodation entries and that some bills were bogus.3. The Assessing Officer recommended disallowance of the brokerage payment based on information obtained from various parties. The assessee withdrew the challenge against the addition of Rs. 89,19,677 before the first appellate authority.4. The assessee later claimed that she was misled by the Assessing Officer regarding the responses from the parties to whom brokerage was paid. However, the Tribunal did not agree with this claim, noting that the parties admitted to providing accommodation bills only.5. The Tribunal found that out of the total brokerage payment, Rs. 61,71,082 was non-genuine and deserved to be disallowed. The assessee was granted relief of Rs. 27,48,595, as the disallowed amount was reduced from the total brokerage payment.6. The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, concluding that the disallowance of Rs. 61,71,082 was justified based on the facts and materials available on record.This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues involved, the findings of the Assessing Officer, the admission by the assessee during the remand proceedings, and the final decision of the Tribunal to partially allow the appeal by reducing the disallowed amount of brokerage payment.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found