Tribunal upholds net profit rate, dismisses expense claims in appeal.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal by setting aside the disallowance of transfer of funds to sister concerns, upholding the net profit rate at 0.15%. The AO and CIT(A) disallowed expenses and applied a ratio against the income assessed at 0.15%, dismissing the appellant's claim for 50% of expenses. The Tribunal found no illegality in not allowing business expenses against estimated income and rejected the appellant's arguments regarding ITAT judgments. The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decisions on expenses without income incurrence and rejected the appellant's claims for re-agitation, ultimately dismissing the appeals.

---

---

Issues:
1. Disallowance of transfer of funds to sister concerns
2. Disallowance of expenses by AO and CIT(A) under section 154
3. Application of expenses ratio by AO and CIT(A) under section 154
4. Disallowance of business expenses against estimated income
5. Ignoring ITAT judgments by AO and CIT(A)
6. Disallowance of expenses without incurring income
7. Claim of 50% expenses allowed by ITAT "B" bench
8. Application of sister concerns' order ratio
9. Rejection of rectification application for 50% expenses

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The appellant sought to set aside the impugned orders passed by CIT(A) regarding the transfer of funds to sister concerns. The Tribunal found that the AO estimated the net profit rate of commission at 2%, which the appellant argued should be 0.15%. The Tribunal upheld the net profit rate at 0.15% based on previous decisions, thereby partly allowing the appeal.

Issue 2 & 3:
The AO and CIT(A) disallowed expenses and applied a ratio against the income assessed at 0.15%. The Tribunal had previously decided to restrict the rate of commission to 0.15%. The appellant's claim for 50% of expenses was dismissed in a miscellaneous application and a rectification application, which were subsequently upheld by the AO and CIT(A).

Issue 4:
The AO and CIT(A) were criticized for not allowing business expenses against the estimated income. The Tribunal found no illegality or perversity in the impugned order, leading to the dismissal of the appeals filed by the appellant.

Issue 5:
The AO and CIT(A) were accused of ignoring judgments given by the ITAT, which the appellant argued should have been considered in their favor. However, the Tribunal found no grounds to overturn the decisions made by the lower authorities.

Issue 6:
The AO and CIT(A) were faulted for not allowing expenses without the incurrence of income. The Tribunal upheld the decisions made by the lower authorities, leading to the dismissal of the appeals filed by the appellant.

Issue 7, 8 & 9:
The appellant claimed that the ITAT "B" bench accepted the claim for 50% of expenses and that the ratio of sister concerns' orders should be applied. However, the Tribunal found that the appellant was not entitled to re-agitate the matter after previous dismissals, leading to the rejection of the rectification application and the subsequent appeals filed by the appellant.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the appellant based on the various issues raised regarding the disallowance of expenses, transfer of funds, and the application of ratios by the lower revenue authorities. The Tribunal upheld the decisions made by the AO and CIT(A) in the assessment years under consideration.

---