TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (2) TMI 1636
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 2. The Ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in law and facts in holding the disallowance of commission paid to Mrs. Priti Desai of Rs. 210015/-. 2.1 The Ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in disallowing the deduction for the commission expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. 3. The Ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts treating the scrap sales of Rs. 4,27,000 as an income on adhoc basis. 4. The Ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in confirming capitalization of the installation/erection expenses of Plant & Machinery at Rs. 3,00,078/-on estimated basis. 4.1 Without prejudice to above, the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in law....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Briefly, the facts of the case are that the AO disallowed commission expenses paid to Mrs. Priti Deasi, made addition on account of sale of scrap, capitalization of expenses, capitalization of interest expenditure and also disallowed the claim of loss. The AO gave specific findings in the assessment order. The learned CIT (A) reproduced the findings of the AO and written submission of the assessee in the appellate order and also reproduced the remand report at the stage of appellate proceedings. The learned CIT (A) also reproduced the remand report and replies of the assessee and ultimately confirmed all the additions and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 3. The learned Counsel for the assessee argued at length on each and every grou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pages 73 to 89 of the paper book. He has submitted that wherever erection and installation expenses have been incurred the same have been capitalized; therefore, addition is clearly unjustified. The learned Counsel for the assessee with regard to the disallowance of interest expenses referred to page 5 of the audit report to show that complete details were filed and, therefore, addition is clearly unjustified. With regard to ground No. 6 relating to disallowance of loss, he has submitted that the articles were sold to the sister concern who have paid taxes, therefore, it is not a case of diversion of income to the sister concern and submitted that complete details were filed which have not been considered by the learned CIT(A). In the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the claim of the assessee and were justified in making the additions. 5. The learned Counsel for the assessee in the rejoinder submitted that the learned CIT (A) has failed to consider the evidences and material on record and merely on presumption made the additions. Even if, the additions were maintained treating as expenditure to be capital in nature, no depreciation has been allowed. He has, therefore, submitted in alternate contention that in case additions are made on account of capital expenditure, depreciation may be allowed. 6. We have considered the rival submissions and the material available on record. The learned CIT (A) rejected the claim of the assessee on account of commission paid to Mrs. Priti Desai because she has f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tter in issue. The assessee suffered losses in preceding assessment year also on account of sales made to the same sister concern and losses have been carried forward in the assessment year under appeal. The learned CIT (A), therefore, failed to take into consideration the relevant factors while deciding the appeal of the assessee. The findings of the learned CIT (A) thus would show that the evidences on record have not been properly appreciated and considered. The assessee has filed corroborative evidences to prove commission payment and findings of the learned CIT (A) would show that addition has been maintained by passing non-speaking order and without taking into consideration the evidences on record. The learned Counsel for the assesse....