ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. RAJINDER KUMAR JAIN, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1961/DEL/2014Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 August 2016AY 2005-063 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, following a coordinate bench's decision on identical facts for a previous assessment year. The disallowances on commission and service charges were restricted as per the CIT(A)'s directions.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict disallowances on commission and service charges. The CIT(A) had followed a previous order in the assessee's own case for an earlier assessment year.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in restricting the disallowance of commission and service charges paid by the assessee.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY & SHRI KULDIP SINGH

PER J.SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER All these are appeals filed by the Revenue pertaining to the same assessee for Assessment Years 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2010-11, directed against the order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)-XXIV, New Delhi dated 31.01.2014 on the following grounds . “On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law CIT(A) has erred in:-

1. Restriction of the disallowance of commission expenses to the extent of 50% of the room charges.

2. Restriction of the disallowance of service charges to the extent of 10% of the room charges.

3. The appellant craves the right to add, alter or amend any other grounds of appeal.”

1.

ITA Nos. 1961, 1962, 1963 and 1964/Del/2014 A.Y. 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2010-11 Sh. Rajinder Kumar Jain, New Delhi 2. We have heard Shri F.R.Meena, Ld.Sr.D.R. on behalf of the Revenue and Shri Ved Jain, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee.

3.

After hearing rival contentions we find that the Ld.CIT(A) had at para 5.2 and 5.3 followed his predecessor’s order in the assessee’s own case on identical facts for the A.Y. 2009-10 in appeal no. 342/11-12 dated 20.11.2012 and directed the A.O. to allow commission paid to taxi drivers at 50% of room rent and service charges at 90% on actual service charges paid to staff members. 3.1. The “F” Bench of the ITAT Delhi in for the A.Y. 2008-09 and ITA no.3109/Del/2011 for the A.Y. 2008-09 order dated 22.8.2014 has upheld this order of the Ld.CIT(A) for the A.Y. 2008-09. 3.2. As it is not disputed that the facts and circumstances of the case in all these four A.Ys are identical to the facts of the case for the A.Y. 2008-09, we respectfully follow the order of the Coordinate Bench of the ITAT Delhi Bench on these very issues for the A.Y. 2008-09 and dismiss all these appeals filed by the Revenue.

4.

In the result all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 10th August, 2016.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →