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
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Don't have an account? Register Here
<h1>Tribunal Upholds 0.15% Commission on Bank Credits, Rejects Assessee's Non-Ownership Claim in Accommodation Entry Case.</h1> <h3>Ram Prakash Bhatia Versus ACIT, Central Circle-05, New Delhi</h3> Ram Prakash Bhatia Versus ACIT, Central Circle-05, New Delhi - TMI Issues involved: Appeal against orders of ld. CIT(A)-24, New Delhi dated 03.09.2019 regarding additions made on basis of incorrect details, ownership of bank accounts, and commission charges.Issue 1 - Incorrect additions: The assessee contended that the ld. CIT(A) passed an erroneous order confirming additions based on incorrect details and false information. The assessee disputed ownership of certain bank accounts and requested deletion of additions related to those transactions.Issue 2 - Commission charges: A survey u/s 133A revealed that the assessee operated various entities providing accommodation entries. The assessee admitted to providing entries totaling significant amounts over multiple assessment years. The assessee disclosed a commission rate of 0.15% per lakh of entry provided, which the revenue authorities accepted. The commission was calculated on all credits in bank accounts used for routing entries.Judgment: The ITAT Delhi bench heard the appeals collectively due to identical issues. The tribunal upheld the commission charged at 0.15% despite the assessee's argument that accounts not belonging to them should not be considered. The tribunal dismissed the plea, stating that the assessee, as the operator and beneficiary of the accounts, was liable for the commission earned. The tribunal also noted that the lower commission rate accounted for multiple routing of entries. Consequently, the appeals of the assessee were dismissed, affirming the orders of the revenue authorities.Separate Judgment: No separate judgment was delivered by the judges.