RUPAL CHEMICALS,RATNAGIRI vs. ITO WARD 1, RATNAGIRI

ITA 2588/PUN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 December 2025AY 2021-22Bench: Dr. MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to prove that the service providers actually rendered services for the commission paid. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

What were the facts?

The assessee firm claimed commission expenses of Rs. 49,62,000/- for prior periods (AY 2019-20 and 2020-21) during the current assessment year (AY 2021-22). The Assessing Officer disallowed this claim, stating that the agreements were executed only in AY 2021-22 and no evidence of services rendered was produced.

What were the issues?

Whether commission expenses pertaining to prior periods, but billed and paid in the current year, are allowable deductions without proof of actual services rendered.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 133(6),Section 143(3),Section 142(1),Section 139(8)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(4)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, B BENCH, PUNE

Before: Dr. MANISH BORAD & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

For Appellant: Shri Ramkrishna Lingsur
For Respondent: Shri Ganesh B Budruk-
Hearing: 16.12.2025

PER SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, J.M. : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 07.10.2025 passed by Ld. [CIT(A)] NFAC, Delhi for the Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:-

1.

The Ld. A.O has erred in disallowing commission of Rs. 49,62,000 on the ground that it pertained to prior period being F.Y 2018-19 and 2 2019-20 and without appreciating the fact that it has been expended wholly

and exclusively for the purposes of business.

2.

The Ld. AO has erred in disallowing the commission without

appreciating the fact that the appellant being a firm, the t

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 7,227 judgments and leading authorities on Section 133(6) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →