AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (9) TMI 1243
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessee has filed appeal on following grounds: ― 1. Addition of commission of Rs. 34,22,868/- on sales (a) The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in facts and law in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer of computing the commission 6% on billing of Rs. 5,70,47,800/- as against 1% earned and admitted on actual bills accounted in the books and not considering the total deposits in bank that substantiate the billing accounted for in the books of account. (b) The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in facts and law in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer of calculating the commission 6% as against 1% admitted during the course of survey proceedings, merely based on surmises and conjectures and without bringing on record any material to show that the appellant had infact earned such a commission at alleged higher rate of 6%. (c) The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in facts and law in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer assuming the base of billing at Rs. 5,70,47,800/- against billing of Rs. 5,52,51,947/- recorded in the books of accounts and in not making any reference to bank bo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as expected to give a fair hearing to the assessee to present his case. Accordingly, this appeal is instituted as per the said order of ITAT. 4. Accordingly, assessee before CIT(A) filed written submissions, wherein CIT(A) observed that in the original appeal filed by assessee, assessee had raised several grounds, effectively only two points for determination of appeal i.e. (i) Reopening of assessment u/s. 147, (ii) determination/estimation of commission income of Rs. 32,51,725/- u/s. 144 r.w.s. 148 and 145 of the Act. The first appeal of assessee was dismissed by CIT(A) on both these points. In second round, during appellate proceedings, assessee has chosen not to press point no.1 regarding reopening of assessment u/s. 147 of the Act. So, in second round, now effective issue before CIT(A) remains only one point for determination of appeal i.e. the determination/estimation of commission income of Rs. 32,51,725/- as 144 r.w.s. 148 and 145 of the Act. 4.1 Assessing Officer in his order u/s. 144 r.w.s. 148 and 145 of the Act has discussed the facts and circumstances of the case in detail, and noted his findings in para 27 of the assessment order, which is re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....te of giving number of opportunities. (x) The details furnished and accepted during the course of original assessment made on 29.3.2005 cannot be accepted as correct, genuine and authenticable. In view of the facts found and admitted by assessee as detailed above that assessee is engaged in issuing of Sales Bills / Hawala Bills/Accommodation Bills and purchase bills are also prepared/printed by assessee and the activity is being carried out on from the year 2000 onwards. (xi) Mere denial in letters dt. 6.4.2009, 27.4.2009, 24/29.9.2009 and in letter dt. 3.11.2009 and in affidavit of 5.11.2009 of facts found, admitted and recorded during the course of Survey Action u/s.133A and in statement u/s. 131 on 23.2.2009 do not amount to proving that assessee is carrying on business in textiles. (xii) Action u/s.133A at assessees premises were legally and properly carried out. Hence, assessee is bound by the finding and admission made in statement and reaffirmed on oath u/s.131 as discussed above. (xiii) Assessee has not proved the genuineness of debits in P & L A/c. such as opening stock, purchases and various expenses and credits such as sales, closing s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....called customers in addition to (i) profit generated in M/s. Manoj Mills (difference between the so called purchases and so called sales) (ii) profit earned in number of fictitious proprietory concerns, as discussed above. This also shows that assessee earned income in three places viz. (i) in Proprietory concern M/s. Manoj Mills, declared in the return (ii) commission retained while cash is given to so called customers and (iii) profit earned in fictitious proprietory concerns discussed above. (xxii) In the letter dt. 6.4.2009, assessee made statements that he purchases from Bhiwandi parties and payments are either through discounted cheques or cash. During the course of assessment proceedings assessee has not furnished any details of purchases. As per information available in impounded books and documents, the so called purchases are of fictitious proprietory concerns of assessee and family members discussed above and other paper concerns created in Mumbai address and not of Bhiwandi. Hence, the statement is made to find excuses in not giving any details of purchases when called upon to prove purchases by issuing notice u/s. 142(1) on various occasions. (xxiii)Assessee has made s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lso the rates of presumptive taxation under various statutory provisions, was of the view that the rate of 6% for estimation of income taken by the Assessing Officer matched with the presumptive rate of income as stipulated by the statute itself under various provisions of the Act. Hence, he found the action of Assessing Officer in accordance with the statutory provisions as well as peculiar and dubious facts of the instant case, and accordingly the grounds of appeal relating to the issue were rejected. 4.4 As per directions of ITAT, assessee was provided opportunity to appear and present its case. Accordingly, assessee appeared on 19.03.2014 and filed written submissions, along with paper book containing copy of ITAT order dated 14.08.2013, copy of assessment order, copy of acknowledgement of return of income, copy of financial statement with tax audit report, statement recorded u/s. 133A of the Act dated 13.02.2009 and statement recorded u/s. 131 of the Act dated 23.02.2009. The written submissions made by assessee are reproduced below: ―At the outset, it could be worthwhile to state the chronology of events resulting into remand of the present appeal by the H'b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oid repetition of the entire 'write up' [pages 12 to 25 of the CIT(A) order], I am not narrating the entire scenario, but at the same time, without going into legality, stating the crucial facts for your honour's kind consideration. 3.1 I am an individual and has furnished the return of income declaring the total income of Rs. 1,93,070/-. The assessment was originally completed u/s 143 (3) at Rs. 2,05,080/-. Based on the subsequent survey action u/s 133A on 13-02-2009, the assessment was reopened and the income was determined/estimated at Rs. 34,88,620/-. I am aggrieved on this determination /estimation of income. My humble submission is that the income so determined is far from reality and therefore incorrect. Before canvassing the realistic facts, it would be appropriate to mention as to how the said income has been determined. Particulars Rate applied (%) Amount (Rs.) Turnover assessed Rs. 5,70,47,800/- 6% 34,22,868/- Less: Expenses 5% of 34,22,868/- (1,71,143/-) Business Income determined 32,51,725/- Add: Income from other sources Undisputed 2,43,299/-* Less: Deduction under Chapter VIA (6,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o factually incorrect since commission is earned on issuing accommodation bills on sales not on obtaining purchases bills . If the principal of earning commission on issuing sales bills is applied, the expenses @ 3% should have been considered for obtaining purchases bills by the assessee. Therefore, the assessee's contention of earning 1% commission on sales bills hold good on this count also (i.e 1% =4% earned on sales- 3% expended on purchases). 3.5 It is humbly submitted that finally the dispute between the A.O. and the assessee is broadly on two points i.e (1) Estimating the Turnover and (ii) estimating the Gross profit rate on issuing Hawala Bills. 3.6 The turnover assessed by the A. 0. is Rs. 5, 70,47,800 as against the audited turnover of Rs. 5,51,51,947. The AO has stated nothing in the order as to now he has worked out the said figure except that the bills of the said amounts were found during survey. It is submitted that there is nothing on records that the bills so found were actually has been used by other parties or payments have been received. Thus, the turnover cannot just be assessed on suspicious and on imaginary figures without acting judiciously. 3.7 I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessment order for A. Y. 2002-03 to 2008-09, the facts in briefjust,5'ing as to why the rate of estimation is taken at 4% on gross vales and 3% on purchases by the A.O.is as under: Findings in the course of survey: In the course of survey on 13-2-2009 the assesse stated that he has not done any trading business in textiles from the year 2000 onwards but only issued accommodation sales bills. It was found and established that the modus operandi of the assessee's business was to issue accommodation bills as per the requirement of the parties concerned and collect cheques to the extent of sale proceeds mentioned in the bills, deposit the cheques in his bank account and then transfer the amounts and then withdraw cash from the bank accounts for which he had opened accounts in various fictitious names. The cash withdrawn is given to the so called customers after deducting his commission on such sales bills issued. It was also stated by the assessee in the course of survey that for record purposes he has prepared purchase bills printed and prepared or generated in computer: Further it was also stated that the bills kept blank in between in the bill books are for the purposes ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r obtained purchase bills. The survey team also found blank letter heads of (1) M/s. Devang Industries, (2) D. Kings, (3) Mohammed Haji Adam & Co. (4) Syed Bawkher & Co., (5) Gala Associates stored in the computer of assessee for preparing purchase orders, which were admitted by the assessee in the course of survey in response to question no. 17 & 34 of the statement. Basis of rate of estimation: Most importantly it is mentioned here that assessee has himself admitted that he is in the business of giving accommodation entries to various entities as stated in the order. To issue the said accommodation entries he used to charge commission for the same. The rate of commission varies from party to party and as per the needs of the party. For the same, assessee used to get 4 to 7% of the bill amount as accommodating charges. This amount he used to receive in cash and was never deposited in the bank account, since for the bill amount he used To receive the cheque and issue the equivalent cash amount to the party after deducting accommodating charges. This accommodation charges are nothing but income of the assessee for issuing accommodation entries. It may be further mentioned that du....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iling of affidavit can only be taken as an afterthought to circumvent the proceedings initiated against the assessee. The Ld CIT(A) will appreciate that the assessee has himself admitted that he is in the business of giving accommodation entries and relying on the statement of such assessee's will give boost to this type of assessee's who are habituated to issue accommodation entries. It may be viewed that only at the instance of department after carrying out the survey, it has come to knowledge of the department the modus operandi of the assessee who has taken liberty of the system without bothering about the consequences of nature of activity carried on by him. The assessee was well-versed and well aware of the consequences of issuing accommodation entries but still he has done the same to make huge profit in a short period of time and at the same time also used his family members and their name lending in issuing the accommodation entries. The assessee was operating in the name of various fictitious firms and has also opened various accounts with various banks and many branches to transfer fund from one bank to another bank. For doing all these thing he was trying to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s assessed at higher figures just based on the bills found at the time of survey ignoring the book figure in almost all the assessment years. (Statement 'A' enclosed depicting summary of the figures considered in assessment viz-a viz book figures for the ready reference.). The Ld. A.O. in remand report has only mentioned the assessment of higher turnover for AY 2002-03 and AY 2007-08 and kept silent for other years. It is humbly submitted that the income in issuing accommodation bills occurred only in case payment against the bills are received and the bills so issued are used by the buyer of said bills. The books of accounts duly audited are the conclusive evidence as to correctness and reconciliation of the bills issued and used/payment received. The. A.O. at no stage could prove that the bills found were used by the buyers and commission is actually earned. He just made the total of bills found and applied the rate of commission to arrive at the income, which is incorrect and resulting in to estimating the absurd income. It is submitted that no assessment should be made based on assumption and surmises. ii) Applying commission rate of 4%/6%and 7% on sales turnover as ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d on sales from fictitious concerns, it should be allowed principal concerns. There cannot be double assessment of income once on the fictitious concerns and another on the sales of the principal concerns, whereas the fictitious concerns are shown as purchases in the principal concern. Further, no income can be earned from himself Therefore, addition made on this ground is liable to be deleted. iv) not considering the loss on shares business in AY 2008-09 and 2009-10 The appellant incurred the loss from the share business of Rs. 1,24,58,478 in A Y 2008-09 involving series of transactions as business (transaction detailed whereof were seized department and not shares with the appellant despite request). It is submitted that the appellant though has shown the same in the return of income as capital loss, yet the s should be assessed as business loss in view of rejection of books of accounts. In A Y 2009-10, the assessee also made loss of Rs. 99,78,290 in share business (shown in return as business loss), details whereof were attached with the written submission a1og with copies of bills and scripwise statement of loss and shared with Ld. A. 0. However, the Ld. A.O. did not address....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at the shares are held in 'd'mat form' and dividends were directly credited to designated bank account showing the name of the company in bank statement. The said statement were already in the possession of the A. 0. but he did not try to ascertain the same which he could have simply verify from the observation of the bank account. Therefore, it is requested to allow the dividend income as exempt income u/s 10. (A Y 2006-07 Rs. 10841/-) ix) treating the amount of blanks cheques of Rs. 1.40 crores as income "Is 69A in A 2006-07. A detailed written submission was made before your honour was already shared with the Ld. A.O. in this respect. However, nothing was stated by the A.O. to counter our arguments. Without reproducing again the facts and legal position on this issue, we request your honour to delete the addition. Further, to enable your honour to have the details of income returned and assessed at one place are summarized in the statement 'A' enclosed. It is also worthwhile to submit that the assessment of income in the case of appellant and family members were made at the substantial higher amount, which was not reciprocated by the wealth/undisclosed exp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tements in the past, nor with any documentary evidences. In such circumstances, the best judgment assessment made by the AO has to be looked into objectively based on the facts and circumstances of the case on record. 4.7. The AO in para 27(vii) of the assessment order has noted that the commission earned varies from 2 to 4%, as it appears from the statement/documents found during the course of survey, and the commission earned in cash while handing over the money to customers and in fictitious supplier's accounts were never accounted for. The AO had proposed to assess the gross commission @7% of turnover in the show cause notices, but finally assessed the gross commission only @6%. In this regard, it is an established fact that the appellant himself used to prepare the purchase bills of his various fictitious entities corresponding to the accommodation sale bills issued by him, and the returns of income of such fictitious entities were never filed. Also the appellant used to issue back dated bills, which fact has been substantially proved by the AO. These dubious activities of the appellant as a whole would command high profit margin and hence the estimated margin tak....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on legal activities but not required to maintain books, ranging between 5 to 10% under various provisions of the Act, as shown in the previous appellate order of my predecessor. The fact that the assessee has made substantial investments in immovable properties and if assessee claims that his commission is only 1%, how he can make such huge investments is not disputed by the appellant. This fact also goes to show that assessee's commission is much more than the so called 1%. In view of this, the estimate made by the AO is reasonable and the same is hereby confirmed. The ground of appeal is rejected. 4.8. As regards the turnover estimated at Rs. 5,70,47,800/- based on accommodation bills issued as found during the course of survey, as against turnover of Rs. 5,52,51,947/- declared by the appellant; I am of the opinion, that once the books of accounts of appellant are rejected, the entries made in the books do not have any sanctity and the AO was justified in estimating the turnover on the basis of material in her possession. 5. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. 5. Before us, it was submitted on behalf of assessee that CIT(A) erred in confirming the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., we are in agreement with the view of the ld. CIT (A) that only commission can be determined on the deposits made in the bank accounts of the dummy concerns. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the ld. CIT (A) that the amount deposited in the account of dummy concerns cannot be treated as income of the assessee. Therefore, the ld. CIT (A), in our considered opinion, is justified in treating the cash deposited in various bank accounts controlled and operated by the assessee as the turnover of the accommodation entry business and commission income has to be estimated thereon. 5.2 In this background, ld. Authorized Representative submitted that Assessing Officer was incorrect in assuming turnover and required to be adopted the turnover as reflected in books of account. 6. We find that it is not case of turnover and tax thereon but regarding estimation of commission on such business of accommodation entries and tax thereon. Regarding rate of commission adopted by Assessing Officer at 6%. Ld. Authorized Representative submitted that it was very abnormal and cannot happen in case of accommodation business. Further, the rate of presumptive profit referred....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ty and has to satisfy both seller and purchaser. The services rendered by the brokers in real estate transactions are more than the entry providers. Hence both the transactions are not comparable. Therefore, the comparison of commission earned on a real estate transaction, which in fact takes place and commission on transaction which does not at all occur, are not comparable. In accommodation entries the transaction does not take place and, therefore, commission will be certainly lower than the commission in the case of real estate or real transactions. Moreover, neither the ld. CIT(A) nor the Assessing Officer had given any comparable case wherein commission at the rate of 1.75 per cent as taken by the Assessing Officer or 1 per cent adopted by the ld. CIT(A) has been admitted by other assessees engaged in business of bogus provider. Therefore, in the absence of any such material on record, the statement given by the assessee on oath during the course of survey proceedings has to be given credence. The assessee has floated the bogus concerns and has controlled the accounts. During the course of survey, no material was found on the basis of which it could be said that the assessee ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....transactions. The theory of the Assessing Officer to treat the entire deposit as "unexplained cash credits, cannot be accepted in the light of assessment orders in the case of beneficiaries and also in the light of the fact that assessee is only concern with the commission earned on providing accommodation entries. We, therefore, of the view that since the assessee itself has declared the commission on turnover at 0.15% which is more than the percentage considered to be reasonable by the Tribunal in the cases of Palresha & Co. (supra) and Kiran & Co. (supra), the same should be accepted. We, accordingly, accept the commission declared by the assessee and set aside the Order of the CIT (A) in this regard.‖ 6.2 We find that ITAT in case of Sanjay Kumar Garg (supra) has applied 0.2% commission on turnover and in Gold Star Finvest (P) Ltd. (supra) approved 0.15%. So, taking all factors into consideration, we hold that percentage of commission to be earned on turnover is reasonable at 0.6%. We hold so. 6.3 Assessing Officer has allowed only ad hoc expenses @ 5% of commission income, without prejudice to merit of issue, we are not inclined to interfere in the finding of Assessing O....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ilar, so following same reasoning, issue is decided accordingly. 12.1 Next issue is with regard to ad hoc disallowance of expenses. We have discussed and decided this issue against assessee in A.Y.2002-03 vide para 6.3 of this order. Facts being similar, so following same reasoning, this issue is decided against assessee. 13. Next issue has been taken by way of additional ground regarding deduction u/s.88 of the Act. Similar issue has been restored by us to Assessing Officer in A.Y. 2002-03 vide para 7. Facts being similar, so following same reasoning, this issue is restored to Assessing Officer with similar directions. 14. As a result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed. 15. In ITA No.5032/Mum/2014 for A.Y. 2005-06 in case of Rakeshkumar M. Gupta, the issue of commission income on turnover, we find that we have discussed and decided this issue in para 6 of this order wherein we held that 0.6% commission on turnover is reasonable. Facts being similar, so following same reasoning, issue is decided accordingly. 15.1 Next issue is with regard to ad hoc disallowance of expenses. We have discussed and decided this issue against assessee in A.Y.2002-03 vide para 6.3 o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fficer failed to consider that loans are opening balance which were accepted in 2005-06 and further to substantiate the claim assessee vide submission dated 06.12.2010 stated as under (Refer Page No.98 of paper book of A.Y.2006-07): ― 8. I had taken home loan from Standard Chartered Bank and GE Financial. I have claimed it correctly and best of my knowledge. I am sending the sanctioned letter issued by the above mentioned bank with this letter. The loan account Number and loan details are mentioned on it. The bank Certificate and interest certificate are in the documents impounded by your department. I would like to request you to collect it from there itself. The housing loan taken is not wrongly claimed and is in the preview of income tax act, 1961, so cants be disallowed. 19.1 Assessee submitted that assessee had provided all the details available with him and also the details are lying with Assessing Officer. Hence, Assessing Officer cannot state that assessee failed to substantiate the claim. So, the deduction claimed by assessee is requested to be allowed. In fact, this issue is with regard to deduction of Rs. 1,40,00,000/- advance given to Madanlal Bagrecha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... act in illegally manufacturing and selling heroin. However, cases were to be decided by the Court on legal principles and not on one's own moral views. The Explanation to section 37 of the Act has really nothing to do with the instant case as it was not a case of business expenditure, but of business loss. Business losses were allowable on ordinary commercial principles in computing profits. Once it was found that heroin seized formed part of stock-in-trade of assessee, it followed that the seizure and confiscation of such stock-in-trade had to be allowed as a business loss. Loss of stock-in-trade has to be considered as a trading loss. Consequently, the impugned decision of Hon'ble High Court could not be sustained and was set aside and order of Tribunal was restored. Facts being similar, so, taking all facts and circumstances into consideration, we hold that addition of Rs. 1,40,00,000/- is unjustified. Same should be allowed as business loss. However, same will be offered to tax as and when it is received. Assessing Officer is directed accordingly. 20. Next issue is with regard to disallowance of interest of housing loans of Rs. 3,08,719/-. Similar issue arose in A.Y.200....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Rs. 8,94,016/-. Assessee filed the details. Assessee stated that loss was taken place which is not in dispute, but, Assessing Officer got confused whether it is a short term capital loss or trading loss or speculative loss. But, Assessing Officer failed to consider that shares were always shown by assessee as investment and assessed in past also as investment activity. Hence, gain is required to be allowed as short term capital loss. According to assessee, Assessing Officer cannot deny the loss because of confusion. Now, as per CBDT Circular No.6 of 2016 dated 29.02.2016 investment in short term capital gain be assessed as short term capital gain. Being legal issue raised before us in the light of CBDT Circular, we admit this ground and restore this issue to the file of Assessing Officer to decide the same as per fact and law after providing due opportunity of being heard to assessee. 27. As a result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed. 28. In ITA No.5035/Mum/2014 for A.Y.2008-09 in case of Rakeshkumar M. Gupta, the issue of commission income on turnover, we find that we have discussed and decided this issue in para 6 of this order wherein we held that 0.6% commissio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essee had claimed house loan interest. Assessee claimed interest on house loan u/s.24(b) of the Act amounting to Rs. 1,50,000/- which is already disallowed by Assessing Officer, hence, by disallowing the interest debited in capital account lead to double taxation which is against the law of taxation. Hence, requested that disallowance made by Assessing Officer be deleted. According to the contention of assessee, when expenses were not claimed at all, then same could not be disallowed. Agreeing to the contentions of assessee we do not find that addition in question is not justified. Same is directed to be deleted. 32.1 Regarding interest on housing loan u/s.24(b) of the Act of Rs. 150,000/- out of Rs. 4,22,432/-. Similar issue discussed and decided by us in ground no.8 of A.Y.2006-07 vide para 20 of this order. Facts being similar, so following same reasoning, this issue restored to Assessing Officer with similar direction. 33. Additional ground no.13 in this year is with regard to treating the dividend income of Rs. 18,400/- as taxable income. Revenue authorities observed that assessee failed to filed the details. Hence, dividend is taxable under the head ‗other source'....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Next ground in this year is with regard to not allowing the deduction of Chapter VI-A of Rs. 30,185/-. Similar issue has been restored by us to Assessing Officer in A.Y. 2002-03 vide para 7. Facts being similar, so following same reasoning, this issue is restored to Assessing Officer with similar directions. 39. In ITA No.5037/Mum/2014 for A.Y.2009-10 in case of Rakeshkumar M. Gupta (HUF), the issue of commission income on turnover, we find that we have discussed and decided this issue in para 6 of this order wherein we held that 0.6% commission on turnover is reasonable. Facts being similar, so following same reasoning, issue is decided accordingly. 39.1 Next issue is with regard to ad hoc disallowance of expenses. We have discussed and decided this issue against assessee in A.Y.2002-03 vide para 6.3 of this order. Facts being similar, so following same reasoning, this issue is decided against assessee. 40. Next issue has been taken by way of additional ground regarding deduction under Chapter VIA of the Act. Similar issue has been restored by us to Assessing Officer in A.Y. 2002-03 vide para 7. Facts being similar, so following same reasoning, this issue is restored to A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oning, issue is decided accordingly. 48.1 Next issue is with regard to ad hoc disallowance of expenses. We have discussed and decided this issue against assessee in A.Y.2002-03 vide para 6.3 of this order. Facts being similar, so following same reasoning, this issue is decided against assessee. 49. Next issue has been taken by way of additional ground regarding deduction u/s.88 of the Act. Similar issue has been restored by us to Assessing Officer in A.Y. 2002-03 vide para 7. Facts being similar, so following same reasoning, this issue is restored to Assessing Officer with similar directions. 50. As a result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed. 51. In ITA No.5022/Mum/2014 for A.Y.2003-04 in case of Mohit Rakeshkumar Gupta, the issue of commission income on turnover, we find that we have discussed and decided this issue in para 6 of this order wherein we held that 0.6% commission on turnover is reasonable. Facts being similar, so following same reasoning, issue is decided accordingly. 51.1 Next issue is with regard to ad hoc disallowance of expenses. We have discussed and decided this issue against assessee in A.Y.2002-03 vide para 6.3 of this order. Facts bei....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....partly allowed. 60. In ITA No.5025/Mum/2014 for A.Y.2006-07 in case of Mohit Rakeshkumar Gupta, the issue of commission income on turnover, we find that we have discussed and decided this issue in para 6 of this order wherein we held that 0.6% commission on turnover is reasonable. Facts being similar, so following same reasoning, issue is decided accordingly. 60.1 Next issue is with regard to ad hoc disallowance of expenses. We have discussed and decided this issue against assessee in A.Y.2002-03 vide para 6.3 of this order. Facts being similar, so following same reasoning, this issue is decided against assessee. 61. Next issue has been taken by way of additional ground regarding deduction u/s.80C of the Act. Similar issue has been restored by us to Assessing Officer in A.Y. 2002-03 vide para 7. Facts being similar, so following same reasoning, this issue is restored to Assessing Officer with similar directions. 62. Next issue is regarding interest on housing loan u/s.24(b) of the Act of Rs. 1,29,066/-. Similar issue discussed and decided by us in A.Y.2005-06 vide para 16 of this order. Facts being similar, so following same reasoning, this issue restored to Assessing O....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rder. Facts being similar, so following same reasoning, this issue is decided against assessee. 70. Next issue is with regard to disallowance of interest of housing loans of Rs. 1,50,000/-. Similar issue arose in A.Y.2005-06, which has been discussed and restored to Assessing Officer by us vide para 16 of this order. Facts being similar, so following same reasoning, this issue restored to Assessing Officer with similar direction. 71. Next issue is regarding interest on housing loan u/s.24(b) of the Act of Rs. 1,88,870/-. Similar issue discussed and decided by us in ground no.8 of A.Y.2006-07 vide para 20 of this order. Facts being similar, so following same reasoning, this issue restored to Assessing Officer with similar direction. 72. Next issue has been taken by way of additional ground regarding deduction u/s.80C & 80D of the Act. Similar issue has been restored by us to Assessing Officer in A.Y. 2002-03 vide para 7. Facts being similar, so following same reasoning, this issue is restored to Assessing Officer with similar directions. 73. As a result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed. 74. In ITA No.5028/Mum/2014 for A.Y.2009-10 in case of Mohit Rakeshkuma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of this order. Facts being similar, so following same reasoning, this issue is decided against assessee. 81. Next issue has been taken by way of additional ground regarding deduction u/s.88 & 88C of the Act. Similar issue has been restored by us to Assessing Officer in A.Y. 2002-03 vide para 7. Facts being similar, so following same reasoning, this issue is restored to Assessing Officer with similar directions. 82. As a result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed. 83. In ITA No.5012/Mum/2014 for A.Y.2004-05 in case of Hema Rakeshkumar Gupta, the issue of commission income on turnover, we find that we have discussed and decided this issue in para 6 of this order wherein we held that 0.6% commission on turnover is reasonable. Facts being similar, so following same reasoning, issue is decided accordingly. 83.1 Next issue is with regard to ad hoc disallowance of expenses. We have discussed and decided this issue against assessee in A.Y.2002-03 vide para 6.3 of this order. Facts being similar, so following same reasoning, this issue is decided against assessee. 84. Next issue has been taken by way of additional ground regarding deduction u/s.88 & 88C of the Act. S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d and decided this issue in para 6 of this order wherein we held that 0.6% commission on turnover is reasonable. Facts being similar, so following same reasoning, issue is decided accordingly. 92.1 Next issue is with regard to ad hoc disallowance of expenses. We have discussed and decided this issue against assessee in A.Y.2002-03 vide para 6.3 of this order. Facts being similar, so following same reasoning, this issue is decided against assessee. 93. Next issue has been taken by way of additional ground regarding deduction u/s.80C & 80D of the Act. Similar issue has been restored by us to Assessing Officer in A.Y. 2002-03 vide para 7. Facts being similar, so following same reasoning, this issue is restored to Assessing Officer with similar directions. 94. As a result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed. 95. In ITA No.5017/Mum/2014 for A.Y.2008-09 in case of Hema Rakeshkumar Gupta, the issue of commission income on turnover, we find that we have discussed and decided this issue in para 6 of this order wherein we held that 0.6% commission on turnover is reasonable. Facts being similar, so following same reasoning, issue is decided accordingly. 95.1 Next issue ....