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>ITAT upholds CIT(A) decision on commission payment, citing evidence and explanations. (A)</h1> <h3>Smt. Jaspreet Kaur Versus Dy. CIT, Circle-26 (1), New Delhi</h3> The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete both additions. The ITAT found that the assessee had established the genuineness and business expediency ... - Issues involved: Revenue's appeal and assessee's cross objection against CIT(A)-XXIV, New Delhi's order dated 21-6-2012 relating to assessment year 2009-10.Issue 1 - Disallowance of commission paid:The assessing officer disallowed commission payment of Rs. 16,80,000 to sub-agents, suspecting it to be bogus. However, CIT(A) deleted the addition citing evidence provided by the assessee, including names of recipients, ITR acknowledgements, and bank statements. The AO's suspicion was deemed unsubstantiated as no evidence was presented to prove the allegations. The Revenue contended that mere filing of income-tax returns does not establish the genuineness of the payment. The burden to prove the genuineness and business expediency of the expenditure was not met by the assessee, according to the Revenue.Issue 2 - Addition u/s 69A of the I.T. Act 1961:The appellant challenged the addition of Rs. 7,81,585 due to a difference in gross earnings vis-a-vis the amount appearing in AIR, attributing it to a debit note for service tax. The CIT(A) accepted the explanation provided by the appellant, noting that service tax returns were filed and challans for amounts paid were submitted. The Revenue argued that the service tax payment difference was not adequately explained by the assessee, relying on a judgment of the Delhi High Court.Judgment:The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete both additions. Regarding the commission payment, the ITAT found that the assessee had discharged the burden of establishing the genuineness and business expediency of the expenses, as evidenced by audited books, banking transactions, agreements, and TDS deductions. The inability to physically produce sub-agents did not undermine the evidence provided. Similarly, the difference in service tax payment was adequately explained and reconciled by the assessee, as accepted by the CIT(A). The ITAT dismissed both the revenue's appeal and the assessee's cross-objection.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
