TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (3) TMI 96
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Y 2018-19. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee- company is engaged in the business of trading of steel and iron products like TMT bars, Billets etc., filed its return of income admitting a total income of Rs. 78,72,000/- for the AY 2018-19. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS to verify the issue "Business Expenses". The Ld. AO considering the submissions made by the assessee completed the assessment u/s. 143(3) r.w.s.143(3A) and 143(3B) of the Act on 19/03/2021 by accepting the income returned. The Ld. Pr. CIT under the powers vested as per the provisions of section 263 of the Act, considered the order of the Ld. AO as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The main contention of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e transaction with reference to the genuineness of the payment of commission and remitted the matter back to the file of the Ld. AO. Further, the Ld. Pr. CIT also observed that there are discrepancies in the GST shown in the commission bills and GST reported in the Audit Report. The Ld. Pr. CIT also directed the Ld. AO to verify the transaction with regard to immovable properties between M/s. Maa Mahamaya Power Limited and the assessee-company. The Ld. Pr. CIT directed the Ld. AO to provide the sufficient opportunities of being heard to the assessee thereby setting aside the decision of the Ld. AO to pass suitable orders in accordance with law. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. Pr. CIT, the assessee is in appeal before us by raising the fol....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t source in accordance with law. He also submitted that net profit for the impugned assessment year was also increased by 5.5 times. The Ld. AR vehemently submitted that the Revenue cannot question the business decisions of the assessee and the payment of commission is in accordance with the normal business practice. Countering the arguments of the Ld. AR, the Ld. DR submitted that huge commission of Rs. 7.61 Crs cannot be justified. The Ld. DR also submitted that net profit remained the same. The Ld. DR also submitted that the commission was credited in its books of accounts only in the end of the year and hence should not be considered. The Ld. DR fully supported the order of the Ld. Pr. CIT. In response, the Ld. AR once again reiterated ....