TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (3) TMI 310
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the value of sales. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee declared sales of Rs. 24,78,70,238/- inclusive of Rs. 3,90,17,944/- on account of Service charges in its Trading account. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO called for details of sales on which commission was paid and on which commission was still payable. Such details filed by the assessee have been incorporated on pages 3 onwards of the assessment order. After going through two Annexures filed by the assessee in this regard, the AO observed that there was a difference of Rs. 6,15,68,134/- between two figures, namely, Rs. 18,21,12,483/- as per Annexure-7 and Rs. 12,05,44,349/- as per Annexure-1. He noted that whereas Annexure-7 containe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....an be no question of making any further addition on the same score. We, therefore, uphold the impugned order in deleting this disallowance. This ground is not allowed. 5. Ground no. 2 is against the deletion of disallowance of Rs. 60,19,438/- made by the AO on account of unexplained commission payment where corresponding sales had not been credited by the assessee to the Trading and Profit & Loss Account. This ground is, in fact, consequential to ground no. 1. It is seen from break-up of total turnover and total commission, as discussed supra, that there is complete detail of commission on sales to the tune of Rs. 1,27,77,515/- which figure matches with the amount of deduction claimed by the assessee in its Profit & Loss Account. All the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....page 90 of the paper book which is an Agreement between ONGC and the assessee. It was claimed that pursuant to this Agreement, the assessee got technical assistance from its parent company for which the said payment was made. However, on a specific query, no Agreement, between the assessee and parent company evidencing the nature of work done and remuneration for such technical assistance was placed on record. In the absence of any such Agreement, it is difficult to understand the nature of work for which the assessee made the payment and also its quantification. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order on this issue and remit the matter to the file of AO for deciding this point afresh in the light of the material placed or to be further....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es, such royalty payment made by the assessee to its sister concern came to be accepted and allowed as deduction by the Revenue in earlier years. Even the Transfer Pricing Officer found such payment to be at arm's length. The viewpoint of the AO in lifting the corporate veil by treating royalty payment to its sister concern as payment to self, has absolutely no basis as both are independent entities and the factum of user of patent/trademark etc. has not been denied by the AO. Obviously, when the assessee is using patents/trademarks of its parent company, it will have to pay royalty for the same which cannot be disallowed, unless it is not at arm's length price. We, therefore, uphold the impugned order on this score. 10. As regards the a....