Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

24. In other words the Ld CIT(A) ignoring his own findings, given in AY 2007-08, vide his order dated 6.05.2013,and without the support of any material decided the issue against the assessee.

25. It is submitted that so far as the depreciation on UPS is concerned the issue is squarely covered by the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of BSES."

05 The Ld. Department representative vehemently supported the orders of the lower authorities and contested the submission of the Ld. authorised representative. He reiterated all the points for which the disallowance is made by the Ld. assessing officer and confirmation of that disallowance made by the Ld. CIT appeals. 06 We have carefully considered the rival contentions and also perused the orders of the adjudicating officer and the 1st appellate authority. It is an established fact that assessee has paid consultation fees to 4 parties which are mentioned at page No. 2 of the assessment order. These payments are based on the agreement entered into by the assessee with them. The copies of the agreements are placed at serial No. 13 to 17 of the paper book at page No. 124 - 150. As a proof of services rendered the details are placed at serial No. 18 of the paper book at page No. 151 - 170. On verification of the agreements as well as the evidence placed for the rendition of the services, it is apparent that those consultants have made efforts for the business development of the assessee. The remuneration to be payable to these parties are partly fixed and partly variable which was based on value of the contract won by these parties. Those parties were exclusively working for the assessee and were also not engaged in any other business till the continuation of the agreement. The nature of services to be rendered by these parties were to create and execute a sales strategy to contact and convert industry decision makers with the goal of obtaining face-to-face presentation to show the benefit of outsourcing of various operations. Efforts were to be made by identifying prospects, determined and contracting decision makers, determining processes, and doing a need analysis to identify outsourcing opportunities that will provide immense cost savings. Presentation material would further be created for scheduled meetings. Program would further be developed to keep key relations and develop them with non- prospect industry leaders among the investor community and rating agencies. The Sailent business solutions Limited V DCIT Circle 7(1) New Delhi ITA NO 6297/Del/2013 A Y 2007-08 assessee has further submitted the details of services rendered by these parties in the form of various details of clients and their connectivity and showing the various comments and actions taken by them. The assessee has further, given the details of the services provided by the consultants with respect to various presentation and client development made with salesforce.com. In view of this, it is apparent that assessee has entered into service contracts with those parties who have rendered those services and who have also been remunerated in terms of the agreement entered into. The reasons given by the Ld. assessing officer for disallowing the above sum is that increase in the turnover of the assessee despite paying such sum was insignificant. It is apparent that the business development activities do not convert immediately into the revenue model and it may take time. In any case, revenue cannot judge the compensation that assessee has paid for those services with respect to the benefit derived by the assessee. The expenses may be incurred for deriving benefit in future which may always not be immediately converted into monetary terms. The Ld. assessing officer should have merely examined whether the assessee has incurred those expenditure wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business or not. As it is not been negated by the Ld. assessing officer that expenses are incurred by the assessee wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business but the resultant increase in the turnover is insignificant, we do not see any such provision in the income tax act applying this logic for making disallowance. Furthermore, the ld. 1st appellate authority has questioned the rendition of the services by those parties which have been proved by the assessee by placing cogent material. The assessee has entered into contract with these parties to remunerate them by paying certain amount as affixed remuneration and certain amount is a variable remuneration. Just because of the reason that in this year they are supposed to be paid at the fixed rate due to nominal increase in the business, it cannot be said that policy of remunerating a consultant is incorrect. It is important to note that the assessee is paying commission to these parties in past years as well as in subsequent years. The revenue has not questioned allowance of these expenditure on the basis of increase or decrease in turnover or on rendition of services. In nutshell for assessment year 2007-08, the above sum was disallowed to the extent of 25% holding that assessee is deriving benefit of enduring nature. The above disallowance in the past was deleted by the 1 st appellate authority and which Sailent business solutions Limited V DCIT Circle 7(1) New Delhi ITA NO 6297/Del/2013 A Y 2007-08 was not further contested by revenue. For assessment year 2009-10, the above expenditure was disallowed on account of non-deduction of tax at source, which was also deleted by the Ld. 1st appellate authority holding that the income is not chargeable to tax in India. The respective appellate orders are placed in the paper book at page No. 75-80 and 89-119 to demonstrate the above facts. In view of this, it is apparent that assessee is paying consultation fees/commission to these parties in past years as well as in subsequent years and in none of the year the allowance of these expenditures have been questioned on these reasons. Nonetheless, during the year assessee has shown that expenditure is backed by proper agreements as well as proof of rendition of the services, therefore, we do not find any reason that these expenditure should be disallowed. In the result, reversing the order of the Ld. lower authorities, we direct the Ld. assessing officer to allow the expenditure of Rs. 5507987/- and delete the disallowance.