VIN VENTURESS,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIVIC CENTRE, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 950/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 July 2026AY 2018-194 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence to substantiate the export turnover and the accounting method followed. The addition on account of alleged difference in export turnover was not justified and was directed to be deleted.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer disallowed commission payment for non-deduction of TDS and made an addition for alleged differences in export sales. The CIT(A) deleted the addition on TDS but confirmed the addition on export sales.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition on account of alleged difference in export sales is justified when the assessee has provided documentary evidence of export turnover and the accounting method followed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 234C,Section 271AAC

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “H” NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI

For Appellant: Shri Darshan Lal Galhotra, CA & Shri Rishabh Galhotra, Adv
For Respondent: Shri Bhopal Singh, CIT DR
Hearing: 01.07.2026

ITA No. 950/DEL/2026 VIN VENTURESS

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “H” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.950/DEL/2026 Assessment Year: 2018-19 VIN VENTURESS, Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF C-75, 2nd Floor, Shivaji Park, West ICNOME TAX, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi, Delhi 110026. Circle 43(1), Civic Centre, PAN No. AANFV5419K New Delhi, Delhi 110002. Appellant Respondent Assessee by Shri Darshan Lal Galhotra, CA & Shri Rishabh Galhotra, Adv Revenue by Shri Bhopal Singh, CIT DR Date of hearing: 01.07.2026 Pronouncement on 01.07.2026 O R D E R PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

1.

This appeal arises from order dated 13.11.2025, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter as “the Act”), by NFAC.

1.1 In this case, the AO passed an order dated 26.08.2021, through which commission payment amounting to Rs.128,68,549/- was disallowed on account of non-deduction of tax at source and another addition of Rs.119,41,155/- was made on account of an alleged difference in export sales as shown in the profit and loss account as against the figure mentioned in export to customers’ account.

ITA No. 950/DEL/2026 VIN VENTURESS 1.2 The assessee approached the Ld. CIT(A) whereby he could succeed in getting relief on the addition on account of non-deduction of tax at source on commission paid to agent, but the addition on account of an alleged difference in export sales was confirmed.

1.3 The aggrieved assessee has approached the ITAT with grounds which challenge the action of Ld. CIT(A) and also grounds challenging the levy of interest u/s 234A/B/C of the Act and initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC of the Act.

2.

Before us the Ld. AR argued with the help of detailed paper books and written synopsis. It was the submission that the assessee has recorded the export sales at gross value and has debited the profit and loss account with export commission to agent which is being paid by the export customers and the assessee was receiving only the net consideration i.e. gross sales as reduced by the commission paid. It was pointed out by the Ld. AR that detailed documents regarding this accounting process was filed before the authorities below. It was the submission that the assessee cannot be taxed at more than what he has received. It was the submission that the value of gross sales has been substantiated by the shipping bills and invoices. It was also pointed out that this was an accounting principle which had been consistently followed. The Ld. AR demonstrated as a sample regarding the account of one Nigitalex International Limited, where the receipts were less of

ITA No. 950/DEL/2026 VIN VENTURESS commission paid, whereby the export sales were recorded at gross value with the profit and loss account being debited with the export commission to agent. Thereafter, the Ld. AR relied on several orders of Coordinate Benches which supported the Ld. AR’s contention. The Ld. AR also pointed out that considerable documentation was filed before the Ld. CIT(A) through which fresh evidence under Rule 46A was requested to be admitted. Such details included party wise invoices and shipping bills pertaining to export sales and stock summary disclosing purchases made and export sales made.

2.1 The Ld. DR relied on the finding of Ld. AO and the finding of Ld. CIT(A) and stated that there is a clear finding on page 26 of the impugned order that the case was selected for complete scrutiny to verify the quantitative details of the export income of the assessee, about which he had consistently failed to provide the details as asked for by the authorities below.

3.

We have considered the rival submissions and have gone through the records before us. We find that the assessee has submitted considerable details as proof of export turnover and the method of accounting followed by him. We find that through specific instances of customer’s account the assessee demonstrated the finer details of accounting principle followed by him. It appears to be a bit unjustified when the Ld. CIT(A) writes that required details were not filed by the

ITA No. 950/DEL/2026 VIN VENTURESS assessee, even when a host of details were filed under Rule 46A. We find that there has been no attempt to consider the evidence filed by the assessee and at this stage we have analyzed the account statement filed before us and there is no hesitation in holding that the addition on account of alleged difference in export turnover is not merited. The addition sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) is directed to be deleted.

4.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 01.07.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) (SANJAY AWASTHI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 13.08.2026 *Kavita Arora, Sr. P.S. Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI

More judgments on Section 234A

All 5,126 judgments and leading authorities on Section 234A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →