TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (10) TMI 1090
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y ITO, Ward-55(1), Kolkata u/s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") dated 28.03.2013 and 27.03.2014 respectively. 2. The instant appeals were disposed of by Coordinate bench of this Tribunal for non-prosecution vide order dated 23.08.2017. The assessee preferred Misc. Application vide MA Nos. 29 & 30/Kol/2018 which were allowed and the appeals reinstituted vide order dated 18.05.2018. After reinstitution, these appeals were again dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated 12.12.2018. The assessee again preferred Misc. Applications which were allowed vide order dated 25.10.2019 (second reinstitution). After the second reinstitution, again none appeared before us on behalf of the assessee. We note ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essee could have paid maximum commission of Rs.5,88,000/-, the balance being excessive and unsustainable. Further, the Ld. AO found that these expenses were inadmissible u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act as no tax was deducted at source on the payment of this commission. In respect of the second addition towards carriage outward, Ld. AO made an ad-hoc disallowance by adopting 70% of the total expenses claimed for the purpose of disallowance. In respect of the bogus purchases of Rs.4,57,283/- for AY 2011-12, Ld. AO noted that assessee has purchased medicines mainly from the manufacturers or their C&F agents and from whom he called their statement of accounts. From these statements, Ld. AO noted that there were differences in the figures of purchases....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....salary. It was due to use of wrong head/wrong nomenclature that the issue of TDS has arisen which is not applicable in the instant case. Thus, the payments made to these ten persons was in the nature of salary and not commission. In the appellate proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee had made submission that on similar set of facts, 50% of disallowance of commission was made in the assessee's own case in AY 2006-07 in Appeal No. 610/CIT(A)-XXXVI/Kol/2011-12 dated 16/11/2012 by the then Ld. CIT(A)-XXXVI, Kolkata. We find that Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the disallowance of Rs.13,88,500/- made by the AO u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act. We note that the issue has already been dealt in appeal on similar set of facts in assessee's own case in A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that purchases were made by the assessee from three different parties namely, Alkem Laboratories, Wockhardt Ltd. (CIT Road) and Wockhardt Ltd. (Howrah). The AO had issued summons u/s. 133(6) of the Act to all the three parties who had filed their replies and furnished their statements in respect of purchases made by the assessee from them. Ld. AO tabulated the details in respect of purchases from these parties vis-à-vis the purchases as reported by the assessee. From the table furnished by the Ld. AO in his order, we note that the Ld. AO has figured out the differences on account of purchases as claimed by the assessee and as reported by the three parties in respect of opening balances in the statement furnished by the three parties....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ============= Document 1 Wockhardt Ltd. (CIT Road) Wockhardt Ltd. (Howrah) Name of the Party Alkem Laboratories Figures filed by the assessee Purchase (Rs.) Cl.Balance(Rs.) 1,77,51,144/- 56,30,844/- Figures filed by the Party NIL Purchase (Rs.) 1,77,51,144/- minus 22,040/- Balance(Rs.) 6,399/- (Cr.) 5,42,003/- 56,30,844/- minus 1,51,180/- 5,42,003/- 1,50,32,506/- 9,24,766/- 1,50,32,506/- minus 2,83,803/- 9,24,766/- Name of the Party: Alkem Laboratories Head As per the assessee (Rs.) Opening Balance NIL As per the party (Rs.) 22,400/- Purchase 56,30,844/- 56,08,444/- Closing balance NIL 6,399/- (Dr.) Net effect REMARKS Differe....