2010 (12) TMI 725
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....irly stated that in Ground No.2, the assessee has challenged all the additions sustained in this appeal, but the assessee has raised specific grounds against each addition, therefore, once these specific grounds are adjudicated, ground no.2 would be self-answered. In view of the above, Ground No.1 and 2 are not adjudicated separately. 3. Ground No.3 of and 4 of the assessee's appeal are against the sustenance of disallowance of commission expenses of Rs.10,47,301/-. 4. At the time of hearing before us, it was stated by the learned counsel that the assessee is a share broker who has paid commission to the persons who have introduced customers to him. The total commission paid during the year under consideration was amounting ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the department. He also furnished the affidavit of the director to this effect. He therefore submitted that after considering all these details, it would be evident that the commission was paid for the services rendered by these persons known as remisier (agent). ii) That the ITAT, Ahmedabad Benches has considered similar issue in the group cases in the case of ACIT vs. H. Nyalchand Financial Services Ltd. in ITA No.2631/Ahd/2004. That in all those cases also the Assessing Officer had disallowed the commission paid to those agents on the ground that as per the bye-laws of the SEBI, the payment of commission to the agents is prohibited. That, after considering the SEBI bye-laws, as well as bye-laws of Stock Exchange of Ahmedabad,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....set aside to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to examine such details. With regard to the decision of the ITAT, relied upon by the learned counsel, he has stated that the facts in that case were different than the facts of the assessee's case, therefore, this decision would not be applicable. 7. With regard to the applicability of section 194(h), it is stated by the learned DR that since no such explanation was furnished before the Assessing Officer, it would be in the interest of justice, if the entire matter is set aside to the file of the Assessing Officer for re-examination of the case afresh. 8. We have carefully considered the arguments of both the sides and perused the material placed before us. Af....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es and the facts of the case, we are of the opinion that the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was purely on the basis of presumption. The same is therefore deleted. 13. Ground no.6 of the assessee's appeal is against disallowance of Rs.57,725/- being RF connectivity charges on the ground that expenditure was capital expenditure. It was explained by the learned counsel that during the year under consideration, the assessee paid a sum of Rs.57,725/- to Shah Investor's Home Ltd. for obtaining RF connectivity. The Assessing Officer disallowed the some on the ground that Shah Investor's Home Ltd. had erected and commissioned tower and this expenditure was capital expenditure, therefore, he treated the expenditure as capital exp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er of Income Tax (Appeals) on this issue and reject the Ground No.7 of the assessee's appeal. 17. Ground No.8 of the appeal reads as under: "8. That the ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering that Rs.7,802/- out of telephone expenses as revenue expenditure and considering it as capital expenditure on the facts and circumstances of the case. The ld. CIT(A) ought to have directed to allow depreciation on considering it as capital expenditure." 18. We find that the Assessing Officer disallowed the sum of Rs.7,802/- out of total telephone expenditure of Rs.28,118/- on the ground that expenses were incurred for purchase of new telephone instrument, therefore, it was capital expenditure. At the time of hearing before us, no a....