2015 (2) TMI 1270

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ern S. R. Batliboi & Co. with the revenue in the form of fees received during the year to justify its payment to the sister concern. Considering the above facts an amount @ 10% of such claim of Rs. 12,69,09,983/- (74,83,853 + 11,94,26,130) or Rs. 1,26,90,998/- is disallowed and added back being not for the purpose of business. This addition is also called for in view of the provisions of Sec.40A(a)(2)." 2. The order was successfully assailed before the CIT(A) by the assessee. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the revenue preferred an appeal. The learned Tribunal reduced the amount and restricted disallowance to a sum of Rs. 1,10,00,000/- for the following reasons: "We have carefully considered the submissions of the ld....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t Corpn. of India [2002] 256 ITR 701 (AP) that unsupported payment is not deductible. Considering the above cases and the facts of the case, we are of the considered view that the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court cited by the ld. A.R. (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the case before us. Further, the assessee has also not given the details of the services rendered by its sister concern S.R. Batliboi & Co. against which the assessee had paid the sum of Rs. 11,00,00,000/- to it. Considering the totality of the facts before us and the details of the expenses aggregating Rs. 74,83,853/- on account of conference and seminar expenses at pages 161 to 173 of the paper book and the payment of Rs. 11,94,26,130/- towards profession....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....any?" 3.1 It is not in dispute that the assessee debited a sum of Rs. 11 crores and the only narration given in the books of account was "being amount paid as additional manpower supply fees payable to S.R. Batliboi & Co". It is on this basis that the assessee wanted the assessing officer to allow the aforesaid expenditure of Rs. 11 crores, which the assessing officer refused to do and the learned Tribunal affirmed to the extent of 10% of the total sum of Rs. 11 crores. The admitted position is that the revenue, for the relevant year earned by the assessee, increased by 26% whereas expenditures were enhanced by almost 150%. The assessee merely on the basis of the aforesaid entry indicating that the sum of Rs. 11 crores was paid as additi....