TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (1) TMI 814
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to the file of the A.O. for verification following the order of the Tribunal in ITA No. 90/Ahd/2005 for A.Y. 2001-02. 4. The relevant findings of the Co-ordinate Bench in A.Y. 2001-02 in ITA No. 90/Ahd/2005 reads as under:- 12. After careful consideration of the rival submissions and the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the ld. CIT(A) has accepted the assessee's claim for having paid commission with respect to remaining years by accepting the assessee's plea that the commission was not debited in those years because of some dispute was going on and by not accounting for the commission in the relevant year, the assessee had declared more income, without referring to any material as to whether this stands of the assessee was correct or not and how the liability on account of commission for earlier years could be allowed in this year when the assessee itself has claimed the commission on the sales made in the current in this very year itself. 13. In view of above facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, we are of the opinion that this issue also requires reconsideration at the end of the CIT(Appeals) and, therefor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the assessee is that the amount of commission was not certain in the year of exports itself, as there was a dispute with recipient of sales commission. Since the commission agent fail to fulfill various conditions of services, the commission was not paid in the year of export. Therefore, after resolution of dispute sales commission was crystallized in the assessment year under consideration. It is seen that the assessee has not furnished any documentary evidence to prove that there was actually any dispute with the commission agent, causing the assessee to withhold the payment in the year of export. The assessee has not furnished any correspondence etc. suggesting that dispute with the commission agent occurred and the same was resolved during the previous year relevant to the assessment year 2002-03 and the liability was crystallized during this year. The assessee has also hot furnished even copy of agreement, entered into with the commission agent, to suggest that there was actually any agreement between them. Under these facts and circumstances of the case, it is held that the amount of commission of Rs. 1,36,59,714/- debited to the P & L A/c. was not in accordance with the merc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....acts cannot be taken. Since the Hon'ble ITAT had specifically asked to examine the fact of dispute with the commission agents, accordingly, I hold that the appellant can make submissions to prove the fact of dispute with the commission agents and it cannot take a different factual position during the assessment as well as appellate proceedings. It is a matter of fact that during the appellate as well as assessment proceedings, the appellant has failed to file any documentary evidence to prove the fact of dispute with the commission agents, accordingly, I am inclined to agree with the commission agents. It will also be pertinent to mention that during the remand report proceedings the A.O. had specifically inquired about the dispute with the commission agents. The appellant once again failed to file the evidences to prove the fact of dispute with the commission agents. In view of above facts, I hold that the commission liability of Rs. 1,36,59,714/- which accrued to the appellant in earlier years cannot be claimed in the current assessment year. Accordingly, addition of Rs. 1,36,59,714/- is confirmed. This ground of appeal is dismissed. 9. Aggrieved by this, the assessee is b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Act on interest on bank fixed deposits. 14. The assessee, during the course of the assessment proceedings had claimed that the FDR interest earned by the assessee has to be netted off with the interest paid by the assessee for determining the claim of deduction u/s. 80HHC of the Act. This plea of netting off of interest was denied by the A.O. and confirmed by the First Appellate Authority. 15. In our considered opinion, this issue is no more res integra. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Case of ACG Associated Capsules Pvt. Ltd. 343 ITR 89 has laid down the following ratio:- For the purpose of section 80HHC of the Income-tax Act, 1961, it is not the entire amount received by the assessee on sale of DEPB credit, but the sale value less the face value of the DEPB that will represent profit on transfer of DEPB credit by the assessee. Topman Exports v. CIT [2012] 342 ITR 49 (SC) followed. Under clause (1) of Explanation (baa) to section 80HHC of the Act, ninety per cent. of any receipts by way of brokerage, commission, interest, rent, charges or any other receipt of a similar nature included in any such profits are to be deducted from the profits of the business as c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....failed to furnish any detail to prove that it has fulfilled the conditions as stipulated in Section 80HHC of the Act. 22. Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee once again made the claim of deduction relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Amba Impex (supra). The First Appellate Authority held as under :- 4.2 I have carefully considered the rival contentions. It is seen that the appellant during the assessment proceedings as well as appellate proceedings contended that the currency exchange difference had accrued to it in the process of export sales realization. Accordingly, the appellant contended that deduction U/S.80HHC should be allowed to it. Reliance in this regard is placed on the case of Amba Impex 284 ITR 14 (Guj). Taking entirety of facts in view, I am inclined to agree with the contentions of Id. A.R. that the deduction u/s.80HHC is allowable to the appellant on exchange rate difference as the same has been earned in the process of export profits realization. It will also be worthwhile to mention that the Hon'ble ITAT in the case of the appellant in ITA No.3241/And/2008 A.Y.2001-02 dated 30.11.2010 had allowed deduction u/s.80HHC....