ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. COOPER CORPORATION PVT. LTD., SATARA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 104/PUN/2015Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 August 2021AY 2009-109 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 held that the Assessing Officer's disallowance was ad-hoc and lacked cogent reasoning. The CIT(Appeals) was correct in deleting the disallowance as the services rendered by the liaison representatives were substantiated by evidence.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer disallowed a portion of commission paid to liaison representatives, estimating it as an ad-hoc disallowance. The CIT(Appeals) deleted this disallowance, relying on various High Court and ITAT decisions.

What were the issues?

Whether the disallowance of commission paid to liaison representatives was justified, and if the CIT(Appeals) erred in deleting it.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 133A,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, PUNE

Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO & SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY

For Respondent: Shri Vitthal Bhosale, Shri Krishna Gujarathi
Hearing: 18.08.2021Pronounced: 18.08.2021

आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // धनजी सधचव / Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अधधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.

Date 1 Draft dictated on 18.08.2021 Sr.PS/PS 2 Draft placed before author 18.08.2021 Sr.PS/PS 3 Draft proposed and placed JM/AM before the second Member 4 Draft discussed/approved by AM/JM second Member 5 Approved draft comes to the Sr.PS/PS Sr. PS/PS 6 Kept for pronouncement on Sr.PS/PS 7 Date of uploading of order Sr.PS/PS 8 File sent to Bench Clerk Sr.PS/PS 9 Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk 10 Date on which file goes to the A.R 11 Date of dispatch of order

More judgments on Section 133A

All 5,893 judgments and leading authorities on Section 133A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →