DCIT, ROURKELA vs. M/S. TARINI MINERALS PVT. LTD., ROURKELA

ITA 236/CTK/2015Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack31 August 2017AY 2010-1113 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the commission expense disallowance, stating that the AO had not brought any material to show the commission payments were not genuine. The Tribunal also confirmed the CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowances under Section 14A and Section 40(a)(ia).

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer disallowed commission expenses of Rs. 3,29,17,011/- on the grounds that commission agents could not provide complete details of buyers or their correspondence was unserved. The CIT(A) deleted this addition, finding that the AO misunderstood the role of agents and that the assessee had provided sufficient details.

What were the issues?

Whether commission expenses are genuine when agents cannot fully identify buyers or provide complete correspondence, and whether disallowances under Section 14A and Section 40(a)(ia) were justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 40(a)(ia),Section 14A

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, 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 10.2.2015 for the assessment year 2010-2011. 2. In Ground No.1 of the appeal, the grievance of the revenue is that the CIT(A) is not correct in deleting the entire addition 3,29,17,011/- 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.210,35,17,652/- against which a gross profit of Rs.113,97,04,985/- has been shown which works out to 54.18%. He observed that on verification of audited P

& L A/c, it is observed that the assessee has debited an

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 40(a)(ia)

All 7,300 judgments and leading authorities on Section 40(a)(ia) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →