TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (12) TMI 1825
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd. The ld. AR also filed before us a copy of the decision rendered in ITA No.7570/-Mum/2014 (AY-2009-10) dated 24.8.2016 wherein the Tribunal deleted the penalty on identical facts. The ld. AR submitted that in view of the above said facts, the penalty as prayed to be deleted. 4. The ld.DR, on the other hand, appeared to be fairly in agreement with the ld.AR that the addition made by the AO in quantum appeal has been deleted by the Tribunal substantially and also penalty levied in the earlier year has also been deleted. 5. We have heard both the parties on the issue and perused the material placed before us including the order of Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal deleting the quantum. We find that the Tribunal has held that the commission should be taken at 0.15% and the expenditure claimed should be restricted and allowed to the extent of 50% from such income. For the sake of convenience, we reproduce the operative part of the decision rendered in ITA No.6120/Mum/2012 (supra) as under : "4. In all these cases of the Group concerns of Sri Mukesh Chowksi including assessee, the assessments have been made in the wake of search and seizure action under section 132(1) dated 25.11.2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... case of the assessee's sister concern (supra), we uphold the rate of commission/rate of net profit from such activities at 0.15%. Accordingly, ground nos. 4 & 5 as raised by the assessee are allowed . 8. As regards the disallowance of business expenses, the Ld. CIT(A) has directed the AO not to allow any expenses against the net income of 2% determined. We find that the Tribunal in the case of Gold Star Finvest Ltd have disallowed only 50% of the business expenses. Accordingly, following the judicial precedence, which is applicable mutatis mutandis in the case of the assessee also, we direct the AO to allow the business expenses to the extent of 50%. Accordingly, ground no.8 is treated as partly allowed. 9. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed" In assessee's own case also, this issue has been decided in the following manner:- "4. On the other hand, the Id. DR relied upon the order of AO. Nothing has been brought on record by him to distinguish the orders relied upon by the ld. Counsel. 5. We have gone through the orders of lower authorities and the orders of the co-ordinate bench of Tribunal in assessee's own case and other orders relie....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en brought on record by the id. DR to distinguish these cases. Therefore, respectfully following the orders of the Tribunal including the order of Tribunal in assessee's own case in the immediately preceding year, we find that the Id. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition, no interference is called for in the order of Id. CIT(A), therefore, the same is upheld. Grounds No.1 and 2 taken by the revenue stand dismissed". Thus, following the judicial precedence in cases of various groups concerns s well as that of assessee decided by the Tribunal, we hold that net profit rate /commission should be taken at 0.15% and the expenditure claimed should be allowed to the extent of 50% from such income. Accordingly, these two issues are decided in favour of the assessee. As regards the other grounds taken, the same have not been argued before us on the ground that they will become purely academic. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed. As stated in the operating part of the order the similar issues are involved in all the appeals, therefore, this finding will apply mutatis mutandis in all the impugned years. Thus, all the appeals filed by assessee' are treate....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., in the return attached a note stating that it was impossible for it to substantiate its claim of loss by way of any evidence as the relevant records were seized and were with the police authorities. The AO after being unable to obtain copies of the seized documents, based his assessment order on the limited documents provided and rejected the book results declared by the assessee. He estimated the income of the assessee at Rs. 61,00,000/-.He also initiated penalty proceedings separately.The FAA estimated the total income of the assessee at Rs. 1,02,980/-.The Tribunal confirmed this order. The AO observed that the profit was estimated after rejection of books of account due to certain discrepancies and imposed a penalty on the assessee of Rs. 36,41,003/-, on the ground that it was a clear case of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The FAA deleted the penalty holding that the addition made by the AO on the basis of estimated profit could not be a subject-matter of penalty for concealment of income. The Tribunal confirmed this order. On appeal, the AO dismissed the appeal and held that the finding arrived at by the Tribunal did not warrant interference as it was purely a f....