TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (1) TMI 1047
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 1997-1998 in the case of M/s Hind Nihon Proteins P. Ltd. 2. The appeals have been admitted for hearing on the following substantial question of law:- "Whether the finding of the ITAT that the commission agents of the assessee had rendered services to the assessee so as to justify payment of commission to them is perverse being without any evidence?" 3. ITA No.574/2005, which relates to AY 1994-1995, is treated as lead case. 4. It is apparent from the substantial question of law framed, that the dispute is factual. Contention by the Revenue is that the finding recorded by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ("ITAT/Tribunal" for short), for deleting the addition on account of commission paid to two partnership firms M/s. Sikand Farm and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e asstt. year 1993-94 it was accepted by the Revenue u/s 143(1)(a) of the I.T. Act. Likewise, payment of commission at Rs. 10.24 lakhs was also accepted by the Revenue in the asstt. year 1995-96 under regular assessment framed u/s 143(3) of the I.T. Act. In the asstt. year 1996-97 commission payment was initially disallowed by the assessing officer but the disallowance was deleted by the Commissioner (Appeals). 19. The assessee has filed; the confirmations and the statements of accounts of the recipients besides the commission agreements to prove the genuineness of the payment of commission, the receipt of payment of commission was duly reflected in the books of account of the recipients and was offered to tax. The Revenue did not dispute....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pondent assessee was entitled to deduction, both under Sections 80 HH and 80 I of the Act. In case the aforesaid expenditure had not been incurred, deduction under the two provisions would have increased. The last reasoning given by the ITAT was that the Assessing Officer ("AO" for short) had not disputed the payment of commission income to M/s Sikand Farm and M/s R&A Exports in the AYs 1993-1994, 1994-1995 and 1995-1996. Thus, there was contradiction. 6. The assessment order records that commission of Rs. 6,55,772.78 had been paid to M/s North Star Marketing (P) Ltd. for the AYs 1994-1995. No addition was made and the commission paid to M/s North Star Marketing (P) Ltd. was not disallowed. Thus, the respondent assessee was paying commissi....