THE DY. CIT-1(1), RAIPUR (CG) vs. M/S. ARUN TRADE COMBINES, RAIPUR (CG)

ITA 119/BIL/2014Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 August 2018AY 2010-1120 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the commission expenses disallowance. It found that the assessee had provided sufficient justification for the commission payments, which were made through banking channels and reflected in the recipients' income tax returns.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer disallowed Rs. 77,57,000/- paid as commission on sales, doubting its genuineness. The assessee argued that commission payments were necessary for sales promotion in a competitive market and were verifiable. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, finding justification for the payments.

What were the issues?

Whether the commission paid on sales is a genuine business expenditure and if the assessee has provided adequate evidence to substantiate the claim.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 133(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)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, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR

Before: SHRI R. K. PANDA & MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE

For Appellant: Shri R. B. Doshi, CA
For Respondent: DR Assessee by :, Shri R. B. Doshi, CA

Heard together (2 matters)

C.O. No.03/RPR/2014
ITA No.119/RPR/2014

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

PER R. K. PANDA, AM :

The appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 09.04.2014 of CIT(A), Raipur (CG) relating to assessment year 2010-11. The assessee has filed the Cross Objection against the appeal filed by the Revenue.

2 C.O. No.03/RPR/2014

For the sake of convenience, these were heard together and are being disposed

of by this common order.

2.

Ground of appeal no.1 by the Revenue reads as under :-

“1. Whether in law and on facts & circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting 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 →