PIONEER PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 7(2),, KOLKATA

ITA 2997/KOL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 September 2026AY 2014-20156 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What were the facts?

The assessee, Pioneer Property Management Limited, engaged in broking and commission on property sales, filed its return for Assessment Year 2014-15 declaring a total income of Rs. 40,82,320/-. During the year, the assessee received brokerage and commission of Rs. 14,08,63,031/- and paid Rs. 4,60,13,886/- to various parties for services as sub-brokers. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed Rs. 32,00,000/- paid to four parties, citing a lack of proper evidence for services rendered. The assessee had deducted tax at source on these payments. The assessee's appeal to the CIT(A) was dismissed. The assessee then appealed to the ITAT.

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of Rs. 32,00,000/- paid as brokerage and commission was not tenable. The assessee had demonstrated the contribution of each commission agent with cogent evidence. All transactions were made through A/c payee cheques, and TDS under Section 194H was deducted and deposited. Furthermore, the sub-agents were income tax assessees and had filed their returns for AY 2014-15. The AO had also issued notices under Section 133(6) to the payees, who complied by filing payment acknowledgements, IT return acknowledgements, and copies of their accounts. The Tribunal relied on its decision in Smt. Renu Sudhesh Kapoor Vs DCIT, which held that disallowance was unjustified when the department had no evidence to establish that sub-brokerage was not paid, especially when payments were made through banking channels and TDS was deducted. Accordingly, the disallowance was deleted.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the disallowance of Rs. 32,00,000/- paid as brokerage and commission to four parties is justified, considering the assessee provided details of services rendered, made payments through banking channels after deducting TDS, and the recipients were regular income tax return filers. (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 37(1) and Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's contention: The lower authorities erred by ignoring that brokers were engaged for selling property stocks, rendered services, and payments were made via banking channels after TDS. The brokers were regular return filers and complied with notices under Section 133(6). Complete details of services and bills were provided, and payments were made via A/c payee cheques for proper services rendered. Revenue's contention: The Ld. DR supported the impugned order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 133(6),Section 194H,Section 37(1),Section 40(a)(ia)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey

Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member:

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 14.10.2025 of the Office of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi passed under Section 143(3)of the Assessment Year 2014-05 of the Income- Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).

2.

The brief facts of the case of the assessee is that the assessee here in after appellant company is engaged in the

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 133(6)

All 7,189 judgments and leading authorities on Section 133(6) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →