TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (3) TMI 155
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case a sum of Rs. 282950/- & Rs. 103613/- paid to Sh. Baljeet Singh Proprietor of M/S. Maya Cotton & General Mills and Sardar Gurcharan Singh proprietor of M/S. Gee Ess Ahuja Cotton & General Mills as sister concerns of the appellant are permissible deduction in computing the business income of the appellant or not ? b. Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case the order of the Tribunal is perverse by not dealing with the finding of the Assessing Authority and also that of the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) in respect of disallowance under Section 40A(2)(a) wherein the quantum of being excessive and unreasonable has not been ascertained and found out and no evidenc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... his shop. The claim of the assessee was that it was because of the help by his father and brother that he was able to earn. The claim made by the assessee was rejected by the Assessing Officer and the entire amount, which was claimed to have been refunded, was added to the income of the assessee. The order passed by Assessing Officer on this account was upheld by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal). In further appeal before the Tribunal, the order passed by the Assessing Officer was upheld with the following observations:- " We have heard both the parties and carefully considered the rival submissions, examined the facts , evidence and material on record. It is settled law that if the assessee claims deduction of any expenses, the b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ere is nothing on record to show that the increase was due to the efforts made by the assessee's two sister concerns. In other words, there is no evidence whatsoever to support the claim of the assessee that they had rendered any services for which commission was paid when they did not even know them. As regards the payments assured by the sister concerns, there is also no evidence for the same. In any case, when they had made purchases, they were duty bound to make the payments. In fact substantial amounts of purchases made in the months of Nov., Dec. 2000 and Jan, 2001 through the assessee, the payments were delayed and were made only in the succeeding assessment year. Thus, the claim of the assessee for payment of 75% of commission is no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....type of claim by the assessee has not been disallowed, keeping in view the principal consistency, even during this year, the expenses deserves to be allowed; (ii) the provisions of Section 40A(2)(a) of the Act has not been given effect to as the authorities have failed to quantify the reasonable amount which was to be allowed/disallowed in the facts and circumstances of the case and (iii) that the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mcdowell and Co. Ltd. Vs. Commercial Tax Officer (1985) 154 ITR 148 has been over-ruled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India and another Vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan and another (2003) 263 ITR 706. Suffice to add here that both the judgments do not deal with the questions in issue in the present cas....