TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (3) TMI 1030
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urred during the previous year. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in disallowing the claim of deduction of Rs. 9,60,175/- being the amount of expenses incurred on packing materials (Rs 8,51,825/- Sunil Industries) and transportation expenses (Rs. 1,08,890/- S.T. Mahadik) 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in disallowing the claim of deduction of Rs. 9,00,000/- being the amount of retainer ship expenses incurred by the appellant during the previous year. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD TO ALTER AMEND AND OR DELETE ANY OR ALL OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assesse is engaged in the business of marketing products like gas mantles, playing cards....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....had disallowed the expenses that these expenses are incurred in the next year and not pertains to the year under consideration. It is also submitted that following the mercantile system of accounting according to which one has to account for income and expenses on accrual basis, the assessee company has already distributed the prizes and the gift of gas mantles to the dealers in FY 2004-05 relevant to AY 2005-06 on the performance achieved on the sales achieved in the FY 2003-04 relevant to AY 2004-05, and in addition the assesse as well as parties have already complied the notices issued u/s 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Lastly it was argued that since the liability to pay this amount had already crystalized, therefore no disallowanc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as made are liable to be deleted and hence the same are deleted. This ground of appeal raised by the assesse is allowed. Ground No. 2. 8. The Ld. AR appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that Ld. CIT(A) erred in disallowing the claim of deduction of Rs. 9,60,175/- being the amount of expenses incurred on packing materials (Rs 8,51,825/- Sunil Industries) and transportation expenses (Rs. 1,08,890/- S.T. Mahadik). Ld. AR reiterated the same arguments which were raised before Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that although the assesse company has discharged its onus by supplying the requisite details in order to establish the genuiness of the claim made by the assessee but on the contrary, disallowance was made by the revenue authorities on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppeal raised by the assesse is allowed. Ground No. 3. 8. The Ld. AR appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that Ld. CIT(A) erred in disallowing the claim of deduction of Rs. 9,00,000/- being the amount of retainer ship expenses incurred by the appellant during the previous year. Ld. AR reiterated the same arguments which were raised before Ld. CIT(A). Ld. AR further submitted that the retainership fees paid to the Retainers, viz Shri Nasir Salim Patel - Marketing Executive, M/s Yameen I. Kalania (Public Relation Executive) and M/s Glurej I. Kalania (Office Administration Executive) and in this respect the assesse has already furnished all details called for by the Ld. AO like confirmation, copy of the return of income, Xerox copy ....