DCIT, ROURKELA vs. INDRANI PATNAIK, ROURKELA

ITA 142/CTK/2015Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack31 August 2017AY 2010-1114 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no specific error in its reasoning. It noted that the AO failed to bring material evidence to prove the commission agents were accommodation entry providers and that the payments were not genuine.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer disallowed commission expenses of Rs. 7,09,10,967/-, suspecting that the commission agents provided accommodation entries and never rendered services. The CIT(A) deleted this addition, finding the AO's grounds to be specious.

What were the issues?

Whether the disallowance of commission expenses was justified based on the AO's investigation into the genuineness of services rendered by commission agents.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 133(6),Section 194H

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(5)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, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK

Before: S/SHRI N.S SAINI & PAVAN KUMAR GADALE

For Appellant: Shri D.Pati, AR
For Respondent: Shri Kunal Singh, CIT DR
Hearing: 29/08Pronounced: 31/08

Per N.S.Saini, AM This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A)-2,

Bhubaneswar dated 28.1.2015 for the assessment year 2010-2011. 2. The sole issue involved in this appeal is that the CIT(A) is not correct in deleting the entire addition 7,09,10,967/- under the head “brokerage and commission” .

3.

The brief facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer observed that during the year under consideration, the assessee has shown turnover of Rs.458,16,44,870/- as against turnover shown in the preceding year at Rs.260,77,44,068/. He also observed that the gross profit for the year under consideration was shown at 54.18% and the net profit at 45.94%. He observed Asse ssment Year : 20 1

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 →