ACIT, SPL RANGE-5, NEW DELHI vs. JONES LANG LASALLE BUILDING OPERATION PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3495/DEL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 June 2023AY 2015-165 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 CIT(A) allowed the expenses after admitting additional evidence and obtaining a remand report from the AO, finding the claim to be substantiated. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting similar expenses were allowed in a prior assessment year based on comparable evidence.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer disallowed business service charges of Rs. 3,87,86,030/- claimed by the assessee, stating a lack of supporting evidence. The assessee provided additional documents to the CIT(A) to justify the expenses.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in admitting additional evidence and allowing business service charges without proper substantiation, and whether the expenses were genuinely incurred for business purposes.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 37

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SH. SAKTIJIT DEY & SH. N. K. BILLAIYA

Hearing: 12/06/2023Pronounced: 15/06/2023

PER N. K. BILLAIYA, AM:

1.

1. This appeal by the revenue is preferred against the order of the CIT(A)-36, New Delhi dated 30.01.2019 pertaining to A.Y.2015-16.

2.

The grievance of the revenue read as under :-

1.

Whether CIT(A) was correct in deleting a sum of Rs.3,87,86,030/- on a/c of Business Service Charges as claimed by the assessee.

2. Whether the CIT(A) was correct in admitting additional documents when the conditions as per rule 46A(3) of IT rules were not satisfied and assessee was given adequate opportunity at the time of assessment proceedings. 3. That the appellant are craves leave to add, alter, amend or forgo any grounds of appeal

raised above at the time of hearing.

4. That the grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other.

3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that during the course of the scrutiny assessment proceedings the AO noticed that the assessee has claimed business advisory services charges of Rs.38786030/-. The assessee was asked to show cause for the proposed disallowance of the same. In its reply the assessee filed a service agreement in which it is stated that these expenses were incurred on account of services provided by its associated concern JLLPC for service related to HR services loan staff to the assessee company on need basis and IT support services etc. The AO observed that the assessee has not filed any supporting documents/ evidences and failed to demonstrate that any kind of service was provided by JLLPC and accordingly disallowed Rs.38786030/-.

4. Assessee agitated the matter before the CIT(A) and furnished additional evidences in the form of documents/ evidences in support of the said payment. In fact the assessee submitted additional evidences which are as follows :- • Copy of form 3CEB and transfer pricing study of the Appellant, justifying the arm's length price of the services availed; • Copy of agreement entered by JLLPC with JLL Singapore to justify overall services availed by JLLPC from JLL Singapore, including the services availed by the Appellant; • The cost allocation sheet of the portion of services availed by the Appellant and JLLPC; • Copy of transfer pricing study of JLLPC, evidencing the portion of services relating to the Appellant.; • Copy of email correspondence (on sample basis), evidencing the services actually availed by the Appellant; • Copy of the factual submission in relation to the services rendered by JLL Singapore to the Appellant and benefits derived out of the same by the Appellant for the purpose of its business. Further the Appellant submitted that it had received the following services from JLL Singapore.

Regional Headquarter services Marketing and Communication Services Operating Coordination and Strategy Implementation Services PeopleSoft support services Support Services Organization Hotel Investment Banking Services Financial Accounting Other Regional Business Unit Personnel

5.

Admitting the additional evidences the CIT(A) called for a remand report from the AO and considering the same in the light of the documentary evidences the CIT(A) allowed the expenses of Rs.38786030/- incurred by the assessee as business expenses u/s. 37 of the Act.

6.

Before us the DR strongly supported the findings of the AO. Referring to the invoices exhibited at page 117 of the paper book the DR pointed out that the said invoice is not raised in the name of the assessee. Reiterating what has been stated before the CIT(A) the Counsel pointed out that the said invoice is infact in the name of the assessee. The Counsel further drew our attention to the assessment order of A.Y.2018-19 and pointed out that an identical querry was raised calling for documentary evidence in respect of business service charges and on the basis of similar evidences/ documents the said expenditure was allowed.

7.

We have carefully considered the orders of the authorities below. The undisputed fact is that before the first appellate authority the assessee has furnished demonstrative evidence / documents as mentioned elsewhere which were remitted to the AO calling for a remand report by the CIT(A) and the AO has not made any adverse comment on such evidences. Based on documentary evidences the CIT(A) was convinced with the claim and allowed the same as business expenses.

8.

We further find that in A.Y.2018-19 a specific querry was raised by the AO calling for documentary evidences in respect of business service charges paid amounting to Rs.93419389/- and on the basis of the similar evidences the AO accepted the claim of the said payment. Considering the facts of the case in totality we do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the CIT(A) the appeal filed by the revenue is accordingly dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 15.06.2023.

More judgments on Section 37

All 4,334 judgments and leading authorities on Section 37 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →