AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (7) TMI 1035
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....18: "1. The CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the action of A.O., There by upholding the addition for a sum of Rs 10236902/- out of special discount, account thereby completely ignoring the detailed submissions made by the assessee. 2. The CIT(A) has erred in not agreeing to the assessee's submissions regarding the report u/s 92E of the IT Act duly certified by a chartered accountant. 3. The CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the submissions of the assessee regarding the complete details of the quantity wise sales made to the Ess Ess Kay Marketing Co. at a higher MRP. 4. The CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of ITO thereby disallowing a sum of Rs 935071/- out of Director travelling expenses thereby ignoring the detailed s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nfirming the disallowance made by the A.O. for Rs. 428441/- on account of rebate and discount to other parties. The A.O has wrongly stated that the assessee has not agitated this disallowance as proper replies were filed before the A.O. 3. The assessee craves leave to add, amend, alter or delete any of the grounds of appeals before or at the time of hearing." 4. There are similar grounds on major common issue of special discount, besides other travelling and rebate expenses challenged in the multiple grounds, on identical facts by the appellant and hence both the appeals are heard and adjudicated together for brevity. 5. Facts are discussed from I.T. A. Nos. 178/Asr/2018 in respect of the Assessment Year 2013-14 as a lead case. The appe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stated that this discount has been given in the course of business transactions carried out with that company and audit under section 92E of the IT act has also been carried out. 4.9 I have carefully considered the material available on record and find that it is an accepted fact that out of the total amount of Rs. 152.15 lakh claimed under the head special discount, an amount of Rs. 102.36 Lakh has been given to M/s Ess Ess Kay Marketing Co P Ltd, which is the related party. I have also gone through the sales analysis of electrical accessories filed by the appellant in the course of present proceedings but find the same to be of no use as it does not lead to any finding for or against the appellant. The fact that audit as required under ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hereby completely ignoring the detailed submissions made by the assesse; that he did not rebut to the assessee's submissions regarding the report u/s 92E of the IT Act duly certified by a chartered accountant; and that completely ignored the submissions of the assessee regarding the complete details of the quantity wise sales made to the Ess Ess Kay Marketing Co. at a higher MRP. The Ld. CIT(A) has not appreciated facts and assesses submission on record regarding claims of travelling expense and rebate & discount to other parties. The Ld. Counsel for the assesse filed the written synopsis in support of its contention which are placed on record with a request to remand the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to pass speaking order.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lowed was being i.e. 61.85% as compared 69.99% to other accredited dealers network entities, and therefore, consequently the associate entity was required to be compensated by way of special discount at the year end and that the said special discount of Rs. 1,02,36,900/- was in due cognizance of the loss suffered by the said associate entity, who was allowed lower Trade Discount %. Consequently, it was billed at higher MRP price. He argued that the % trade discount of Rs. 52.37 was an average % of the trade discounts to separate three different segments of dealers net work i.e. 'A' & 'B' being accredited dealers and 'C' being retail customers dealers and thus was not a comparable % vis a vis the said average trade di....