TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (8) TMI 89
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pparent on record from the order of the Tribunal. The relevant contents of the miscellaneous application filed by the assessee are reproduced as under:- Relevant Facts * One Mr. 5 5 Mohla, an ex-employee appointed to secure orders made a claim of Rs. 1,07,55,260 on the Appellant company * In order to settle the dispute out of court, the appellant paid Rs. 75,00,000 towards * Restraining Mr. Mohla from sharing any confidential documents, information, business and trade secrets of the Appellant with any competitor or third party * Withdrawal of civil suit filed before the High Court of Delhi * The ITAT held payment is in nature of commission and since the Appellant failed to deduct TDS u/s 194H ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... year in question and consequently, disallowance made by the assessing officer under section 40(a)(ia) in respect of the transaction charges cannot be sustained" * Decision of the coordinate bench in the case of DCIT vs. UPS Jetair Express P Ltd 56 taxmann.com 387 (Mum) not considered while deciding on merit - mistake apparent from record o * Reliance is placed on the following decisions: - Honda Siei Power Products Ltd 295 ITR 466 (SC) Reliance Communication Ltd 183 TTJ 388 (Mum) - Silicon Graphics Systems (I) Ltd 21 SOT 471 (Del) * Ref Para 65, Pg 10 of Fact Sheet - Relying on the decision of the coordinate bench in the case of DCIT vs. UPS Jetair Express P Ltd 56 taxmann.com 387 (Mum)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ystems (I) Ltd 21 SOT 471 (Dei) Mula Pravara Electric Co- op society Ltd 156 TTJ 517 (Pune) In respect of Ground No 4 Relevant Facts * Appellant incurred expenses to the tune of Rs. 19,95,476 on gifts which were given to employees, dealers, customers, other business associates, and government officials on festive occasions * The ITAT rejected the ground of the Appellant by holding that the expenses in the nature of gifts and rewards are in the nature of personal expenses and hence cannot be allowed as deductible under section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961. The ITAT also held that mere payment of FBT on such expenses would not discharge the Appellant's obligation to prove such expenses to say that thes....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....loyer to its employees and the same have to be appropriately allowed as expenses incurred wholly and exclusively incurred by the assessee for the purpose of its business." * Decision of coordinate bench in case of Agfa India P Ltd vs ACIT 81 taxmann.com 453 (Mum-Trib) not considered while deciding on merit Mistake apparent from record Reliance is placed on the following decisions: - Honda Siel Power Products Ltd 295ITR 466 (SC) Reliance Communication Ltd 183 TTJ 388 (Mum) - Silicon Graphics Systems (I) Ltd 21 SOT 471 (Del) * The Hon'ble Mumbai bench of the Tribunal in the case Agfa India P Ltd vs ACIT 81 taxmann.com 453 (Mum.Trib) following the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat Hig....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2397/Mum/2010) relied upon by the assessee and other decisions, which are squarely applicable to facts of the assesee. The said error constitutes the mistake apparent on record, which requires rectification u/s 254(2) of the I.T.Act, 1961. 4. The Ld. DR, on the other hand submitted that the Ld. AR for the assessee has failed to make out a case of prima-facie mistake apparent on record from the order of the Tribunal, but what is sought through the miscellaneous application is review the decision rendered by the Tribunal in the given facts and circumstances of the case, which is not permissible u/s 254(2) of the Act. Hence, miscellaneous application filed by the assesee may be rejected. 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the ....