Schneider Electric (Ind.) Ltd. v. CIT (21008)

304 ITR 360High Court2008#6062 most cited

What is Schneider Electric (Ind.) Ltd. v. CIT (21008) authority for?

Commission paid to agents for services rendered is not deductible if the assessee fails to provide evidence that the agents actually procured sale orders or rendered services justifying the commission.

19

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Schneider Electric India Ltd v CIT · Section 37(1) · commission payment · disallowance of commission · evidence of services · procurement of sale orders · ITAT Delhi · Delhi High Court

Sections most often in play

Section 133(6)Section 10(2)(xv)Section 139(8)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 250

Judgments citing Schneider Electric (Ind.) Ltd. v. CIT (21008)

RUPAL CHEMICALS,RATNAGIRI vs. ITO WARD 1, RATNAGIRI

In the result Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2588/PUN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.2588/Pun/2025 नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2021-2022 Vs Ito, Ward 1, Rupal Chemicals, D/13, Midc, Lote Ratnagiri Parashuram, Taluka Khed, District Ratnagiri-415722 Maharashtra Pan-Aabfr7940R Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ramkrishna LingsurFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh B Budruk-
Section 133(6)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 144B

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण" बी "न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "B" BENCH, PUNE BEFORE Dr. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपीऱ सं./ITA No.2588/PUN/2025 नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2021-2022 Vs ITO, Ward 1, Rupal Chemicals, D/13, MIDC, Lote Ratnagiri Parashuram, Taluka Khed, District Ratnagiri-415722 Maharashtra PAN-AABFR7940R Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Ramkrishna Lingsur Revenue by : Shri Ganesh B Budruk- Addl. CIT Date of hearing : 16.12.2025 Date of : 13.03.2026 pronouncement आदेश/ORDER PER SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, J.M. : This appe…

B.K. SALES CORPORATION,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 36(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1498/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Madhumita Roym/S. B.K. Sales Corporation, Vs. Acit, Circle 36 (1), D-1, Gf 5, Virat Bhawan, New Delhi. Commercial Complex, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar, New Delhi – 110 009. (Pan : Aaafb4846K) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ashwani Kumar, Ca Shri Ankur Agarwal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 12.06.2024 Date Of Order : 26.06.2024 Order Per Shamim Yahya: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (Appeals)-12, New Delhi Dated 06.12.2017 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Read As Under :- “1. Revenue : Disallowance Of Service Charges/Commission Paid To Six Hufs Rs.3196047 – A. The Ld. Assessing Officer Has Ignored I. The Basic Fact Of The Assessee Being A Service Recipient Getting Such Services From Various Unrelated Entities.

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 271(1)(c)

…performed by the agents and justification for the amount of commission paid to the related persons. Ld. CIT (A) recorded that assessee did not provide the information asked for. He referred to following cases laws :- (i) Schneider Electric India Ltd. vs. CIT 304 ITR 360 (Del.); (ii) Lakshmiratan Cotton Mills Co. vs. CIT 73 ITR 634 (SC); (iii) The Printer House (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT, Circle 18(1) in ITA No.1674/Del/2011; (iv) ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of Roger Enterprises (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT 88 ITD 95. 6 Referring to the above case laws, ld. CIT (A) enhanced the total income by disallowing the entire commission pai…

KALBURGI CEMENT PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE -2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 573/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Sri Kalyanasundaram, C.AFor Respondent: Sri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 270ASection 92C

…mmission at all. Therefore, we are unable to give evidenced to the facts whose record is not before us and not referred to before the lower authorities". 12. Similarly, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Schneider Electric (Ind.) Ltd. v. CIT (21008) 304 ITR 360 (Del.) held that in the absence of material on record suggesting that the commission agents had procured the sale orders, no commission should be allowed. The relevant para of the judgment is reproduced below; "13. We agree with the Tribunal that there is absolutely no material on record to suggest that M/s Ram Agencies had procured any sale orde…

SRI. SANDEEP KEDIA,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(3)(4) , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 156/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Apr 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

For Appellant: Sri.S.V.Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Matta Padma, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 250

…ny documentary evidence in support of the services rendered to support the basis of payment of commission.  Considering the aforesaid facts in the light of the ratios laid down by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Schneider Electric India Ltd. vs. CIT (304 ITR 360) and by the Hon’ble Supreme Supreme Court in case of Lachminarayan Madanlal vs. CIT (86 ITR 49), it is pertinent to note that:  “even if there is an agreement between the assessee and its selling agents for payment of certain amounts as commission, assuming there was such payment, that does not bind the Assessing Officer to hold that the payment…

ACIT CIR -4(2) (1) , THANE vs. M/S. MUKTI GOLD PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose and the assessee’s C

ITA 1804/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2023AY 2017-18
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 68

…ission payment was made to commission agents against services rendered and there were sufficient proof of payment and receipts of the same and due taxes thereon were paid, the same cannot be denied on mere suspicions:- 1. Schneider Electric India Ltd Vs. CIT (304 ITR 360) Delhi High Court: 2. Lachminarayan Madan Lal V/S CIT (85 ITR 49 SC) 3. M/s Sun Infra and M/s. Sun Minerals in ITA No. 2117/Hyd/2011 and ITA No. 2116/Hyd/2011 4. Roger Enterprises (P) Ltd vs DCIT (2004) (ITAT-Delhi) (88 ITD 95) 5. M/s K.V. Minerals, Hyderabad vs Assessee on 15.07.2013 (ITAT No. 1996/Hyd/2011) 6. Davinder Singh v ACIT (104 ITD 325…

TECH PACIFIC INDIA LTD ( NOW KNOWN AS INGRAM MICRO INDIA LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT OSD -II CEN RG 7, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 8794/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh (Account Member ) & Shri Ravish Sood () Ita Nos.8794, 8795 & 8797/Mum/2011 (Assessment Years: 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2008-09) Tech Pacific India Limited Dy. Commissioner Of (Now Known As Ingram Vs. Income-Tax, Osd Ii, Micro India Ltd.) Central Range -7, Gate No. 1A, Godrej Aayakar Bhavan, Industries Complex, M.K. Road, Pirojshanagar, Vikroli Mumbai – 400 020 (East) Mumbai – 400 079 Pan No. Aabct1296R (Assessee ) (Revenue)

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry &For Respondent: Shri V. Sreekar , D.R
Section 143(3)Section 234A(3)Section 234BSection 234DSection 271(1)(c)

…was no evidence of services being rendered or if there was no commercial consideration: Assam Pesticides & Agro Chemicals V. CIT - 227 ITR 846 (Gau.), (a) Ess Ess Kay Engineering Co. Pr. Ltd. -151 ITR 636 (Punj.) b) (c) Schneider Electric India Ltd vs. CIT - 304 ITR 360 (Del) The Appellant submits that in the first case referred to above, the Court has held that commission paid was liable to be disallowed primarily due to the fact that the payments were made by a Company or a firm to either its directors or partners or their close relatives, Thus, the commission payment was made to a closely related concern or t…

SRI JANARTHANA SPINNING MILLS,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 366/CHNY/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2019AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

For Appellant: Shri. N. Arjun Raj, C.A. for S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Vidya Ramachandan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 40A(3)

…commission at all. Therefore, we are unable to give evidenced to the facts whose record is not before us and not referred to before the lower authorities”. 12. Similarly, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Schneider Electric (Ind.) Ltd Vs CIT (21008) 304 ITR 360 (Del.) held that in the absence of material on record suggesting that the commission agents had procured the sale orders, no commission should be allowed. The relevant para of the judgment is reproduced below; “13. We agree with the Tribunal that there is absolutely no material on record to suggest that M/s Ram Agencies had procured any sale ord…

M/S ANJEON INC.,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(4), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1297/BANG/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raom/S.Anjeon Inc. No.131, 6Th Cross, Vinayaka Nagar, Katriguppe Main Road, Bengaluru. … Appellant Pan: Aapfa 6584 Q Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward 4(4), Bengaluru. … Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kulkarni, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Padma Meenakshi, JCIT(DR)
Section 143(3)

…ommission at all. Therefore, we are unable to give evidenced to the facts whose record is not before us and not referred to before the lower authorities”. 12. Similarly, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Schneider Electric (Ind.) Ltd Vs CIT (21008) 304 ITR 360 (Del.) held that in the absence of material on record suggesting that the commission agents had procured the sale orders, no commission should be allowed. The relevant para of the judgment is reproduced below; “13. We agree with the Tribunal that there is absolutely no material on record to suggest that M/s Ram Agencies had procured any sale orde…

JCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S BHUWALKA PIPES PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed

ITA 882/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raojoint Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Osd), Circle 1(1)(2), Bengaluru. … Appellant Vs. M/S.Bhuwalka Pipes Pvt. Ltd. ‘Solus’, 8Th Floor, E & G, No.2 1St Cross Road, Jc Road, Bengaluru-560027. … Respondent Pan: Aabcb 7778 E

For Appellant: Shri P.Dinesha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr.Pradeep Kumar, Addl.CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 37

…all. Therefore, we are unable to give evidenced to the facts whose record is not before us and not referred to before the lower authorities”. Page 6 of 9 12. Similarly, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Schneider Electric (Ind.) Ltd Vs CIT (21008) 304 ITR 360 (Del.) held that in the absence of material on record suggesting that the commission agents had procured the sale orders, no commission should be allowed. The relevant para of the judgment is reproduced below; “13. We agree with the Tribunal that there is absolutely no material on record to suggest that M/s Ram Agencies had procured any sale orde…

M/S. VOLVO INDIA PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1353/BANG/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Dec 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Lalit Kumarm/S.Volvo India Private Limited, Yalachahally Village, Tavarakere Post, Hoskote, Bangalore – 562 122. Pan: Aaacv 6747N … Appellant Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ltu, … Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Jain, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 234CSection 234DSection 92C

…ommission at all. Therefore, we are unable to give evidenced to the facts whose record is not before us and not referred to before the lower authorities". 12. Similarly, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Schneider Electric (Ind.) Ltd. v. CIT (21008) 304 ITR 360 (Del.) held that in the absence of material on record suggesting that the commission agents had procured the sale orders, no commission should be allowed. The relevant para of the judgment is reproduced below; "13. We agree with the Tribunal that there is absolutely no material on record to suggest that M/s Ram Agencies had procured any sale orde…

ITO, BANGALORE vs. M/S SAFRAN ENGINEERING SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 451/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raoit(Tp)A No.451/Bang/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11)

For Appellant: Ms.Neera Malhaotra, CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri K.R.Vasudevan, Advocate
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 92C

…commission at all. Therefore, we are unable to give evidenced to the facts whose record is not before us and not referred to before the lower authorities”. 12. Similarly, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Schneider Electric (Ind.) Ltd Vs CIT (21008) 304 ITR 360 (Del.) held that in the absence of material on record suggesting that the commission agents had procured the sale orders, no commission should be allowed. The relevant para of the judgment is reproduced below; “13. We agree with the Tribunal that there is absolutely no material on record to suggest that M/s Ram Agencies had procured any sale ord…

PRAXAIR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 23/BANG/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.Chandrashekar. CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)

…commission at all. Therefore, we are unable to give evidenced to the facts whose record is not before us and not referred to before the lower authorities”. 12. Similarly, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Schneider Electric (Ind.) Ltd Vs CIT (21008) 304 ITR 360 (Del.) held that in the absence of material on record suggesting that the commission agents had procured the sale orders, no commission should be allowed. The relevant para of the judgment is reproduced below; “13. We agree with the Tribunal that there is absolutely no material on record to suggest that M/s Ram Agencies had procured any sale ord…

ACIT, BANGALORE vs. 3M INDIA LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee- company as well as the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 727/BANG/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 May 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Bhutani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 92C

…commission at all. Therefore, we are unable to give evidenced to the facts whose record is not before us and not referred to before the lower authorities”. 12. Similarly, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Schneider Electric (Ind.) Ltd Vs CIT (21008) 304 ITR 360 (Del.) held that in the absence of material on record suggesting that the commission agents had procured the sale orders, no commission should be allowed. The relevant para of the judgment is reproduced below; “13. We agree with the Tribunal that there is absolutely no material on record to suggest that M/s Ram Agencies had procured any sale ord…

3M INDIA LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ADDL.C.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee- company as well as the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 725/BANG/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 May 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Bhutani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 92C

…commission at all. Therefore, we are unable to give evidenced to the facts whose record is not before us and not referred to before the lower authorities”. 12. Similarly, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Schneider Electric (Ind.) Ltd Vs CIT (21008) 304 ITR 360 (Del.) held that in the absence of material on record suggesting that the commission agents had procured the sale orders, no commission should be allowed. The relevant para of the judgment is reproduced below; “13. We agree with the Tribunal that there is absolutely no material on record to suggest that M/s Ram Agencies had procured any sale ord…

H & R JOHNSON INDIA LTD ( NOW KNOW AS A DIVISION A OF PRISIM CEMENT LTD),MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 34, MUMBAI

In the result,appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 877/MUM/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2016AY 2005-06
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vachaspati Tripathi-DR
Section 115JSection 136Section 143(3)Section 147Section 254(1)

…अिधकरण, ‘एच’ खंडपीठ आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण खंडपीठ मुंबई मुंबई आयकर आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण खंडपीठ खंडपीठ मुंबई मुंबई INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MUMBAI “H” BENCH सव"ी राजे"", लेखा सद"य एवं राम लाल नेगी, "याियक सद"य Before S/Sh. Rajendra,Accountant Member & Ram Lal Negi,Judicial Member आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं/.ITA No.877/Mum/2012,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"/Assessment Year-2005-06 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" M/s. H&R Johnson India Ltd.(Now The Asst. CIT known as a Division o Prism Central Circle-34 Cement Ltd.), Windsor, 7th Floor, Room No.104, 1st Floor Vs. CST Road, Kalina…

ITO 8(3)(4), MUMBAI vs. XORIANT SOLUTIONS P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3109/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Nov 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2006-07 Ito 8(3)(4) Xoriant Solutions P. Ltd. R.No.202, 2Nd Floor, Winchester, 4Th Floor, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, High Street, Vs. Mumbai-400020. Hiranandani Corporate, Park, Powai, Mumbai-400076 (Revenue) (Respondent) P.A. No.Aaacx0146P Revenue By Harshad Vengurlekar (Dr)

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

…AT for the very same purpose. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the ratio laid down in the cases of Lakshminarayan Madanlal Vs CIT (86 1TR 439) SC and Schneider Electric India Ltd. Vs CIT (304 ITR 360) Del, etc., that neither the agreements nor mere payments of commission through account payee cheques after deduction of TDS can bind the Assessing Officer from enquiry into deductibility of commission u/s. 37(1) of Income-tax Act,1961, when no evidence of any services actually rendered was produced. 4. The appellant prays that the order of the C…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. THE PRINTER HOUSE PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed and the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4530/DEL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2007-08 The Printer House Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle-18(1), 10, Schindia House, New Delhi New Delhi (Pan: Aaact0004A) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Ita Nos. 2545 & 4530/Del/2011 Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2008-09 Dcit, Circle- 16(1), Vs. The Printer House Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi 10, Scindia House, New Delhi (Pan: Aaact0004A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. V.K. Bindal, Ca & Ms. Swety Kothari, Ca Department By : Sh. P. Dam Kanunjna, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.09.2015 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.10.2015 Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, A.M.: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As By The Revenue. Appeal In Ita No. 1674/Del/2011 For Ay 2007-08 Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Cit(A), Dated 28.02.2011 Whereas The Appeals In Ita Nos. 2545/Del/2011 For Ay 2007-08 & 4530/Del/2011 For Ay 2008-09 Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Orders Of Cit(A) Dated 28.02.2011 & 25.07.2011 Respectively. The Assessee Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal In Ita No. 1674/Del/2011:

For Appellant: Sh. V.K. Bindal, CA & Ms. Swety Kothari, CAFor Respondent: Sh. P. Dam Kanunjna, Sr. DR
Section 14A

…at all. Therefore, we are unable to give credence to the facts whose record is not before us and not referred to before the lower authorities.” 10. Similarly, the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Schneider Electric (India) Ltd. Vs. CIT, (2008) 304 ITR 360 (Del.) held that in the absence of material on record suggesting that the commission agents had procured the sale orders, no commission should be allowed. The relevant para of the judgment is reproduced below: “13. We agree with the Tribunal that there is absolutely no material on record to suggest that M/s. Ram Agencies had procured any sale ord…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. THE PRINTER HOUSE PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed and the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2545/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2007-08 The Printer House Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle-18(1), 10, Schindia House, New Delhi New Delhi (Pan: Aaact0004A) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Ita Nos. 2545 & 4530/Del/2011 Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2008-09 Dcit, Circle- 16(1), Vs. The Printer House Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi 10, Scindia House, New Delhi (Pan: Aaact0004A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. V.K. Bindal, Ca & Ms. Swety Kothari, Ca Department By : Sh. P. Dam Kanunjna, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.09.2015 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.10.2015 Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, A.M.: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As By The Revenue. Appeal In Ita No. 1674/Del/2011 For Ay 2007-08 Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Cit(A), Dated 28.02.2011 Whereas The Appeals In Ita Nos. 2545/Del/2011 For Ay 2007-08 & 4530/Del/2011 For Ay 2008-09 Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Orders Of Cit(A) Dated 28.02.2011 & 25.07.2011 Respectively. The Assessee Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal In Ita No. 1674/Del/2011:

For Appellant: Sh. V.K. Bindal, CA & Ms. Swety Kothari, CAFor Respondent: Sh. P. Dam Kanunjna, Sr. DR
Section 14A

…at all. Therefore, we are unable to give credence to the facts whose record is not before us and not referred to before the lower authorities.” 10. Similarly, the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Schneider Electric (India) Ltd. Vs. CIT, (2008) 304 ITR 360 (Del.) held that in the absence of material on record suggesting that the commission agents had procured the sale orders, no commission should be allowed. The relevant para of the judgment is reproduced below: “13. We agree with the Tribunal that there is absolutely no material on record to suggest that M/s. Ram Agencies had procured any sale ord…

THE PRINTER HOUSE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed and the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1674/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2007-08 The Printer House Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle-18(1), 10, Schindia House, New Delhi New Delhi (Pan: Aaact0004A) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Ita Nos. 2545 & 4530/Del/2011 Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2008-09 Dcit, Circle- 16(1), Vs. The Printer House Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi 10, Scindia House, New Delhi (Pan: Aaact0004A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. V.K. Bindal, Ca & Ms. Swety Kothari, Ca Department By : Sh. P. Dam Kanunjna, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.09.2015 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.10.2015 Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, A.M.: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As By The Revenue. Appeal In Ita No. 1674/Del/2011 For Ay 2007-08 Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Cit(A), Dated 28.02.2011 Whereas The Appeals In Ita Nos. 2545/Del/2011 For Ay 2007-08 & 4530/Del/2011 For Ay 2008-09 Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Orders Of Cit(A) Dated 28.02.2011 & 25.07.2011 Respectively. The Assessee Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal In Ita No. 1674/Del/2011:

For Appellant: Sh. V.K. Bindal, CA & Ms. Swety Kothari, CAFor Respondent: Sh. P. Dam Kanunjna, Sr. DR
Section 14A

…at all. Therefore, we are unable to give credence to the facts whose record is not before us and not referred to before the lower authorities.” 10. Similarly, the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Schneider Electric (India) Ltd. Vs. CIT, (2008) 304 ITR 360 (Del.) held that in the absence of material on record suggesting that the commission agents had procured the sale orders, no commission should be allowed. The relevant para of the judgment is reproduced below: “13. We agree with the Tribunal that there is absolutely no material on record to suggest that M/s. Ram Agencies had procured any sale ord…

Schneider Electric (Ind.) Ltd. v. CIT (21008) (304 ITR 360) — Cited in 19 Judgments | BharatTax