TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (4) TMI 742
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to as "the Act") relevant to the Assessment Year 2009-2010. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The learned CIT(A) has erred both in law and on the facts of the case in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 6,61,569/- out of commission expenses. 2. The learned CIT(A) has erred both in law and on the facts of the case in confirming the disallowance of consultancy expenses of Rs. 10,83,8337-. 3. Both the lower authorities have passed the orders without properly appreciating the fact and that they further erred in grossly ignoring various submissions, explanations and information submitted by the appellant from time to time which ought to have been considered before passing the impugned or....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessee. 5. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the Ld.CIT(A). The assessee before the Ld.CIT(A) submitted that it's a common prevailing practice to increase the business by way of getting references from the parties. By way of reference, the assessee gets vital business information which has been used to increase the turnover and therefore the commission expenses were incurred. 5.1 It was also submitted by the assessee that the commission expenses were paid to unrelated parties after deducting the TDS. Therefore, there cannot be any doubt on the genuineness of the expenses. 6. However, the Ld. CIT(A), disregarded the contention of the assessee by observing that the assessee failed to furnish the details about the services r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....endered by the commission agent. The onus lies upon the assessee to justify based on the documentary evidence that the expenses have been incurred wholly and inclusively for the purpose of the business. To our understanding the assessee has not justified the services rendered by the commission agent, therefore, we do not find any merit in the argument of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. Accordingly, we uphold the findings of the authorities below. Hence the ground of appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 11. The second issue raised by the assessee is that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance made by the AO for Rs. 10,86,833/- on account of consultancy expenses. 12. The assessee in the year under consideration has paid c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of business. It is the decision of the assessee to look into the business affairs diligently and take the decision accordingly after considering the prevailing competition in the market. 14.2 However, the Ld. CIT(A), disregarded the contention of the assessee by holding that the assessee failed to furnish the necessary details about the services rendered by the consultants as discussed above. 14.3 Likewise, the identity of the parties to whom the consultancy expenses have been paid were not furnished. Therefore, the same has been confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). 15. Being aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee is in appeal before us. 16. The Ld. AR before us submitted that all the parties to whom the payments have b....