2016 (12) TMI 740

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....assessment year, 2003-04. The following questions of law have been sought to be answered: "(I) Whether, in view of the law laid down by this Hon'ble Court in the case of D.C.I.T. Vs. Super Tannery (India) Ltd. reported in 274 ITR page 338, the amount of commission having been paid towards commercial expediency for facilitation of work of contract and its early payment, the Income Tax Tribunal was not legally justified in disallowing the claim of commission and further making an addition of the sum as unexplained expenditure under Section 69 (C) of the Income Tax Act? (II) Whether, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was legally justified in view of the fact that no defects were pointed in the duly audited books accoun....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he CIT (Appeals), which is quoted hereunder:- " That the learned ITO has already accepted the books results of net profit without disturbing the business expenses, hence the addition of Rs. 11,13,009/- and Rs. 4,18,434/- u/s 69 C by disallowing the labour expenses in the trading account and alleged secret commission is against the principles of law and are unjustified and may be deleted, when he has also taken the net profit of business of Rs. 1,09, 295/-. The entire addition made by the ITO is uncalled for and arbitrary. The addition of Rs. 4,18, 434/- is already included in labour expenses of Rs. 18,53,889/- and has been disallowed in Rs. 11,13,009/-. Hence it is added twice first in 11,13,009/- and secondly separately assessed."....