TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (2) TMI 1472
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 1. 2002-03 13.11.2009 1,93,070 34,88,620 2. 2003-04 27.12.2010 3,52,130 53,46,820 3. 2004-05 27.12.2010 3,47,100 50,45,582 4. 2005-06 27.12.2010 3,22,927 5092,600 5. 2006-07 31.12.2010 14,89,199 2,03,91,871 6. 2007-08 13.11.2009 2,77,978 72,95,730 7. 2008-09 27.12.2010 4,52,100 55,09,230 Basis of addition for all the years are as under:- Particulars A.Y 02-03 A.Y 03-04 A.Y 04-05 A.Y 05-06 A.Y 06-07 A.Y 07-08 A.Y 08-09 Estimation of commission income At 6% on sales 34,22,868 At 7% on sales 7,399,410 At 4% on Sales 3,071,999 2,958,244 2,763,394 3,522,073 2,711,165 At 3% on Purchases 1,842,925 1,639,557 1,889,964 1,651,105 1,932,479 Less: Expenses @ 5% on estimate commission 1,71,143 (245,745) (229,890) (232,668) (369,971) (232,182) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ITO (2013) 33 taxmann.com 129 (Mumbai tribunal) held that addition of 0.6%. of turnover is reasonable. The relevant portion of the order reads as under:- "6.1 We find that Tribunal in case of Sanjay Kumar versus Garq vs. ACIT (supra) held that rate of commission cannot be more than 1 %, but in present case, the assessee had already offered the same for taxation. purpose but with rider of allowability of certain expenses against same. Hence, the rate of 6% adopted by Assessing Officer was highly one. Hence, the commission income was to be taken @ O. 6% of sales tumover. Similar view has also been taken by the Jurisdictional Mumbai Tribunal in case of Gold Star Finvest (P). Ltd. v. ITO (2013) 33 taxmann.com 129 (Mumbai - Trib.), wherein Tribunal held as under: "12. Having Carefully examined the various Orders in the case of different assessees, it has become amply at that in these type of activities brokers are only a concerned with their commission on the value of the transactions. Now the question comes what would be the reasonable percentage of commission on the total turnover? The assessee has also made out a case that the customers do not come directly to him and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in case of Harigopal Singh Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in (2002) 125 Taxmari 242, wherein the estimated addition made by the AO was considerably reduced by the Tribunal, has held that in such cases, provisions of section 271 (1 )(c) of the Act are not attracted. The same view have been taken by the ITAT Chandigarh in JCIT v. Bhagwan Dass Gorg (2014) 48.taxmann185 (Chandiqarh-Trib), Jodhpur Tribunal 111 ITO v. Gurunanak Oil Agency (2013) 35 taxmann 562(Jodhpur-Trib.) and other Benches of ITAT. So, in view of the decisions of the Hon'ble High Courts and Tribunals, we are of the considered opinion that this is not a fit case where penalty can be imposed under section 271 (1 )(c) of the Act for concealment of income or for furnishing incorrect particulars of income. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and allow the grounds of appeal of the assessee. We respectfully following the same we delete the penalty. 6. In case of ITA No.2598/Mum/15 the additional ground for levying the penalty which reads as under: The learned commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) erred in facts and law in confirming the action of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oned bank with this letter. The loan account Number and loan details are mentioned on it. The bank Certificate and interest certificate are in the documents impounded by your department. I would like to request you to collect it from there itself. The housing loan taken is not wrongly claimed and is in the preview of income tax act, 1961, so cants be disallowed." 19.1 Assessee submitted that assessee had provided all the details available Assessing Officer. Hence, Assessing Officer cannot state that assessee failed to substantiate the claim. So, the deduction claimed by assessee is requested to be allowed. In fact, this issue is with regard to deduction of Rs.l ,40,00,000/ - advance given to Madanlal Bagrecha to substantiate same. The stand of assessee has been that assessee had given cheques of Rs.l,40,00,000/- in July 2006 to Mr. Madanlal Bagrecha forgetting the cash. Mr. Madanlala Bagrecha doing the business of cheque discounting. These cash were required to be paid to assessee purchase parties at Bhiwandi for getting goods purchases. Mrr. Madanalal Bagrecha had intentionally withhold this amount for which assessee had lodged an official complaintwith concern Police dep....