VIMALESHWAR OVERSEAS CO.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 31(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the payment made for non-submission of 'C' Forms was for commercial expediency and deleted the addition. However, the disallowance of club expenses was upheld due to lack of evidence of business purpose.
What were the facts?
The assessee, engaged in import licenses and commission agency, disputed additions made by the AO. These additions were for payments made due to non-submission of 'C' Forms and for club expenses.
What were the issues?
Whether the payment made by the assessee for non-submission of 'C' Forms is a deductible business expense, and whether club expenses were incurred for business purposes.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA BENCH “SMC”, KOLKATA
Before: SH. J.SUDHAKAR REDDY
ORDER
PER J.SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER This appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 24.05.2018 passed by CIT(A)-09, Kolkata for AY 2013-14.
In this case, the assessee disputed the addition on account of disallowance made by the AO on payments of Rs.3,61,75/- towards late and non-submission of “C” Form and adhoc disallowance of Rs.73,975/- of club expenses. The assessee in this case was engaged in the purchase and sale of Import licenses and acting as a Commission Agent. The assessee acted as a mediator for some purchase and sale of goods. “C” Forms were not received from the purchaser for these transactions and consequently the same could not be given to the seller. It is the obligation of the buyer to submit “C” Form to the seller. As this was not done, the assessee, had to compensate the seller the differential amount of tax. The AO disallowed the same on the ground that this expense is not the liability of the assessee. In my view, the payment is made for commercial expediency. The fact is that the assessee has incurred this expenditure. The disallowance is bad in law as the genuineness of the expenses was not doubted. In these circumstances, I delete the addition and allow this ground of the assessee.
Year: 2013-14] 3. Regarding disallowance of club expenditure, the AO has observed that the expenses were not personal in nature. Before us, Ld. Counsel for the assessee could not produce any evidence to controvert the evidence of Ld.CIT(A). Ld.CIT(A) upheld this disallowance on the ground that the assessee could not establish that the expenditure was for business purpose. I find no infirmity in the order of Ld.CIT(A). I uphold the same and dismiss this ground of appeal of the assessee.
4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 05.10.2018.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Rohit Medical Systems vs. Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Services Tax And Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Shivam Kumar vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Rajkalpana Travels PVT. LTD. vs. Commissioner CGST, Delhi North CommissionerateDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Mahaveer Ispat Traders vs. Principal Commissioner Dgst Delhi Department Of Trade And Taxes Gnctd & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026