2025 (1) TMI 1655

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....]. 2. Following grounds have been raised by the Revenue: - "1. Whether the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 8,63,14,907/- being expenses on Rebate and Discount, when such Rebates and Discounts are not verifiable from the bills to the customers and not proved to have incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of its business. 2. The appellant craves leave for reserving the right to amend, modify, alter, add or forego any ground(s) of appeal at any time before or during the hearing of this appeal." 3. The relevant facts giving rise to this appeal are that the assessee, a wholly owned subsidiary of Bureau Veritas SA., France, provides testing, inspection and audit services to Indian affili....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....it in the garb of rebate & discount to the holding company AE. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT (A) and succeeded. 4. The Ld. Sr. DR, placing reliance on the AO's finding, submitted that the assessee had failed to demonstrate, with the help of any corroboratory evidence, that such rebate & discount had actually passed on to its customers through its AE. The agreement/MOU entered between holding company AE and the assessee, being self-serving document, did not demonstrate that the said rebate & discount had been actually passed on to the customers through the AE. Thus, the assessee could not establish that the said rebate & discount had been incurred wholly and exclusively for the business purposes, argued the Ld. Sr. D....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... In the interest of justice, she prayed for remitting the matter back to the CIT (A) as the present case was squarely covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case (supra). 5. On the other hand, the Ld. AR submitted that the said rebate & discount had been paid as per the agreement between the assessee and its AE, which later on, passed on to the foreign customers through MOUs between the AE and customers. The Ld. AR drew our attention to the said agreement/MOU. The Ld. AR drew our attention to the categorical finding of the Ld. CIT (A) that 'this year case was different than the preceding year and the documentary evidences on record also favour the contentions of the appellant. I find force in the evidences provide....