What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no infirmity as the genuineness of the payability was not doubted and the Revenue did not provide contrary facts. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

The Assessing Officer disallowed commission expenses paid to foreign agents on export sales. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, considering a previous year's decision.

What were the issues?

Whether commission expenses paid to foreign agents are allowable when their genuineness is not doubted but verification is difficult due to foreign location.

ACIT vs Oasis Internaitonal | ITAT Mumbai 2017

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES, ‘C’ MUMBAI

Before: Shri Joginder Singh, & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal-DR, Shri Pravin R. Raiyani

Hearing: 02/11/2017

Heard together (2 matters)

C.O. No.194/Mum/2017

ITA No. 307/Mum/2016

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

आदेश / O R D E R Per Joginder Singh (Judicial Member) The Revenue is in appeal, challenging the impugned order dated 15/10/2015 of the Ld. First Appellate Authority, Mumbai, whereas, the assessee has preferred cross objections.

During hearing, the Ld. DR, Shri Rajat Mittal, defended the addition made by the Assessing Officer, whereas, the Ld. counsel for the assessee defended the impugned order.

2.1. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The facts, in brief, are that the assessee is a partnership firm, engaged in the business of manufacturing and export of readymade garments. The Ld. Assessing Officer while framing the assessment made disallowance of commission expenses of 3 C.O. No.194/Mum/2017 M/s Oasis Internatinal Rs.33,03,914/- with respect to some payable to foreign agents on export sales of the assessee in gulf countries. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) considering the decision for Assessment Year 2010-11, deleted the addition.

The Revenue is aggrieved and is in appeal before this Tribunal. We find that the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) was challenged before this Tribunal by the Revenue, wherein, vide order dated 01/04/2016 (ITA No.3960/Mum/2014), on tax effect, the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed. However, no contrary facts were brought to our notice by the Revenue. The Ld. Assessing Officer has not doubted the authenticity and the genuineness of the payability of the commission and merely made the disallowance on the plea that confirmation, submitted by the assessee cannot be verified since the parties are located outside. The genuineness of the document is not in doubted, therefore, we find no infirmity in the conclusion of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), resultantly, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

4 C.O. No.194/Mum/2017 M/s Oasis Internatinal

So far as, the cross objection No. 194/Mum/2017 is concerned, this was not pressed by the ld. counsel for the assessee, therefore, dismissed as not pressed.

Finally, the appeal of the Revenue as well as the Cross Objection of the assessee is dismissed.

This order was pronounced in the open court in the presence of the ld. representative from both sides at the conclusion of the hearing on 02/11/2017.

ACIT 20(2), MUMBAI vs. OASIS INTERNAITONAL, MUMBAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments