2015 (10) TMI 81

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ard, School Pads & other Audio/Visual Products, AMC & renting of Audio/Video Products. The assessee had filed its return under normal provisions. However, the return was taken up for scrutiny and the Assessing Officer had made additions to the income of assessee on both substantive and protective basis. The Assessing Officer had carried out due verification and scrutiny and was satisfied that the bifurcation/apportionment was justified and correct. 4. Subsequently, a notice was issued by the Commissioner u/s 263 of the Act. The Commissioner had issued notice by observing that commission required to the disallowed u/s 36(1) (ii) of the Act, as it was paid to the two Managing Directors. The Commissioner also observed that assessee had book....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 7. The assessee went in appeal against the said order under Section 263 of the Act before the Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the assessee vide order dated 26.042013. The assessee went to Hon'ble High Court and the Hon'ble High Court remitted back the matter by directing the Tribunal to consider the factual matrix as related to various documents on record and to examine the scope of Section 36 (1) (ii) of the Act. 8. The Hon'ble High Court has given clear cut finding in Para 11 that: "11. It is clear from the order passed by the Commissioner under Section 263 that the issue relating to apportionment of common expenditure was specifically gone into and examined by the Assessing Officer, who was full....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....is respective region. The company has prescribed a Business Head Manual which prescribes the details of the terms and conditions of the commission sale contract. The assessee further submitted the chart of equity share holding as on 13/3/2012 related to various years starting from 31st March 2007 till 13th March 2012 in this particular, Mr. Manish Dham was not acquiring any percentage of equity in the year 2007 whereas Mr. Rajeev Bakshi was having 1.72% of equity in the year 31st March 2007. The same is annexed at page 42 of the paper book submitted by the assessee before this Tribunal. The assessee submitted the entire paper book with the relevant documents to Assessing Officer and after going through all the documents the Assessing Office....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....entioned that High Court has directed the Tribunal to decide both the issues in respect of applicability of Section 36(1) (ii) of the Act as well as apportionment. The DR further submitted that the AO though made observations by taking into account of the evidence placed before him still, the AO has not applied his mind, therefore submitted dismissal of the appeal. 12. We have perused all the records and taken into account all the submissions made by the AR as well as DR. The first contention of the DR in respect of directions given by the High Court is not as per the actual direction given by the Hon'ble High Court. The Hon'ble High Court has given a direction in respect of examining the scope of Section 36 (i) (ii) of the Act a....