2014 (8) TMI 391

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... assessment years, both these appeals are decided and disposed of together by this common order. [2.0] Both these tax appeals have been preferred by the Revenue challenging the impugned common judgment and order dated 23.08.2013 passed by the learned Tribunal in ITA No.2312/Ahd/2011 for the Assessment Year 2008-09 and ITA No.2029/Ahd/2011 for the Assessment Year 2009-10 by which the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the said appeals preferred by the Revenue and has modified the orders passed by the learned CIT(A) restricting the disallowance made by the AO of Rs. 5 lac instead of Rs. 40 lac made by the AO [for the year AY 2008-09] and restricting the disallowance of Rs. 4.50 lac instead of Rs. 37,67,708/- made by the AO [for the AY 200....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of such payment was covered within the provisions of section 40A(2)(b) of the Act, the assessee was called upon to furnish his explanation and to substantiate his claim of commission payment to his brother by producing the details of services rendered justifying such commission. The assessee furnished the explanation and also produced one agreement on a stamp paper of Rs. 100/. However, the genuineness of the said agreement was doubted by the AO. The assessee also produced various communications/certificates issued by M/s. Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd., the main supplier of the assessee stating that Shri Amit Patel was the key person of Meet Marketing. The assessee also claimed that because of the services rendered by the said Shri Amit Pat....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... [3.5] Now, so far as Tax Appeal No.405/2014 arising out of ITA No.2029/Ahd/2011 for the Assessment Year 2009-10 is concerned, the assessee paid total commission of Rs. 49,67,708/and the AO considered Rs. 12 lac as reasonable and accordingly disallowed Rs. 37,67,708/- considering it to be excessive. On appeal the learned CIT(A) deleted the said addition however by impugned judgment and order the learned Tribunal has restricted the disallowance to Rs. 4.50 lac instead of Rs. 37,67,708/- made by the AO. [3.6] Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the same, the Revenue has preferred the Tax Appeal No.405/2014 for AY2009-10. [4.0] We have heard Shri Varun Patel, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Revenue and Shri S.N. Divat....