2019 (2) TMI 1282

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... ("the Tribunal" for short) dated 28.9.2015. It pertains to the assessment year 1997-98. The Revenue has urged following questions for our consideration:- "A. Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in deleting the disallowance of sub-brokerage of Rs. 89,32,288/- and sub-brokerage of Rs. 43,04,449/- without appreciating the fact that the assessee had failed to prove that any services were rendered by the parties to whom sub-brokerage was paid? B. Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in deleting the disallowance of sub-brokerage of Rs. 82,27,229/- (included in Rs. 89,32,288) payable to C S Boston (Hong Kong) Ltd., without verifying whether ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the ground that due to denial of permission for remission of payment by Reserve Bank of India by order dated 20.11.1997, such payments could not be made. This is an additional reason why we would not interfere with the order of the Tribunal. 4. Question No. (C) arises out of the action of the Assessing Officer to disallow 50% of the sub-brokerage charges paid by the assessee to related parties. The Tribunal, while giving relief to the assessee, observed that the Assessing Officer had made disallowance without any reason. In the earlier assessment years, such expenditure was recognized and accepted. However, the Assessing Officer had not built up a case that payment was excessive so as to apply Section 40A(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961....