TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (9) TMI 774
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....acts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal misdirected itself in law in not appreciating that all the necessary particulars for verification of the allowability of the claim of deductibility of the Commission payment in computation of income were found out and verified in the order of the First Appellate Authority, that is the Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] and whether the Tribunal was justified in law in upholding the disallowance of claim for deduction of the Commission payment made by the Assessing Officer and whether the finding arrived at was perverse ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the Tribunal was perverse, in so far as, it completely ignored the satisfaction recorde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assed by the Tribunal dated 29th April, 2004, which is an order which was passed under Section 254(2) of the Act. Subsequently, the assessee sought leave of this Court to file the appeal challenging the main order passed by the Tribunal and the Division Bench by order dated 11th May, 2015 granted leave to the appellant to challenge the main order passed by the Tribunal dated 24th September, 2003, subject to payment of costs. The cost has been remitted and the assessee has filed a supplementary affidavit dated 12th July, 2022 challenging the main order passed by the Tribunal and the said affidavit is taken on record. We have heard Mr. Ananda Sen,, learned Advocate appearing for the assessee/appellant and Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, learned standin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....chase and sales were provided to the assessing officer at the time of hearing, all the payments were made through account payee cheques of the thirteen commission agents, who procured business for the assessee were being income tax assessee and PAN numbers were available with the income tax officers. The books of accounts produced before the assessing officer and more particularly the payment of commission was not unique assessment year under consideration but has been paid in the previous years and the subsequent years, which were never disallowed by the assessing officer. The CIT(A) after considering the evidence placed before it was satisfied that the payments effected by the assessee were in the nature of commission and accordingly reve....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ALUMINIUM CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [1972] 86 ITR 11 (SC), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court after noting the decision in SWEDESH COTTON MILLs CO. LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, [1967] 63 ITR 57 (SC) and the decision in COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V. WALCHAND & CO. (P) LTD. [1967] 65 ITR 381 (SC) held that in applying the test of commercial expediency for determining whether the expenditure was wholly and exclusively laid out for the purpose of the business, reasonableness of the expenditure has to be adjudged from the point of view of the businessman and not of the revenue. The Rule laid down in the decision of WALCHAND & CO. (P) LTD.(supra) was followed by the Hon'ble Supre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cy, the nature of business activity done by the assessee, are all to be taken into consideration while examining the nature of payment which has been effected. The assessee in no uncertain terms has stated that apart from facilitating procuring of raw material, the agents also facilitated in securing speedy payment to the assessee. This factor has not been taken note of by the Tribunal, which, in our opinion, is a very vital factor to decide the sustainability of the claim of the assessee. That apart, the Tribunal was of the view that most of the companies with which the assessee had business transactions were all Government of India concerns. However, the Tribunal has failed to note that the Assessing Officer has noted the names of all th....