2016 (11) TMI 735 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal reduces disallowances, emphasizes genuineness & consistency in decisions.

M/s Northpoint Centre of Learning Versus JT. CIT (OSD) -15 (1), Mumbai

M/s Northpoint Centre of Learning Versus JT. CIT (OSD) -15 (1), Mumbai - TMI Issues Involved:1. Adhoc Disallowance2. Disallowance under Section 14A3. Disallowance of Professional Fee4. Disallowance of Conducting Fee/Commission FeeIssue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Adhoc Disallowance:- Background: The Assessing Officer (AO) made an adhoc disallowance of Rs. 1,75,267, being 10% of the total expenditure, suspecting personal use without supporting evidence. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] reduced this to 5%.- Tribunal’s Decision: Referring to the Tribunal's decision for A.Y. 2010-11, where the disallowance was further reduced to 2%, the Tribunal noted that the AO had not pinpointed specific personal expenses. The Tribunal emphasized that the assessee provided ledger accounts and all expenses were incurred for business purposes. Therefore, the disallowance was restricted to 2% for consistency and to end litigation.2. Disallowance under Section 14A:- Background: The AO made an adhoc disallowance of Rs. 2,58,650 under Section 14A, which was confirmed by CIT(A) using Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules. The assessee argued that no expenses were incurred to earn tax-free dividend income.- Tribunal’s Decision: Following the Tribunal's earlier decision for A.Y. 2010-11, where the disallowance was reduced to Rs. 1 lakh from Rs. 3,41,763, the Tribunal reiterated that Rule 8D applies only if the AO is not satisfied with the assessee's claim. The Tribunal directed reducing the disallowance to Rs. 1 lakh, emphasizing that disallowance should be reasonable.3. Disallowance of Professional Fee:- Background: The AO disallowed Rs. 4 lakhs paid as professional fees to an interior designing consultant, arguing it was not incurred for business purposes. The assessee contended that the payment was for consultancy on refurbishing the office, paid by cheque with TDS deducted.- Tribunal’s Decision: The Tribunal noted that the payment was made by cheque, TDS was deducted, and services were rendered by the consultant. The Tribunal emphasized that the genuineness of the transaction was not disputed, and rendering of services was sufficient for the expense to be considered business-related. Therefore, the disallowance was directed to be deleted.4. Disallowance of Conducting Fee/Commission Fee:- Background: The AO disallowed Rs. 15,78,624 paid as a commission to M/s Northpoint Training & Research Pvt. Ltd., alleging misappropriation of profit. The CIT(A) upheld this, despite the Tribunal allowing similar payments in A.Y. 2007-08.- Tribunal’s Decision: The Tribunal referred to its decision for A.Y. 2007-08, where the commission was allowed, noting that services were rendered, and payments were made for business purposes. The Tribunal criticized the CIT(A) for not considering the complete facts and emphasized that the same facts and circumstances prevailed in the current year. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the commission payment, following the precedent set in A.Y. 2007-08.Conclusion:The appeal was partly allowed, with the Tribunal providing relief by reducing or deleting the disallowances based on precedents and the genuineness of the transactions. The order was pronounced on September 21, 2016.