Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.06 seconds)Smt. Satinderjit Kaur vs Income Tax Officer. Ito V. Smt. ... on 8 June, 1994
2. Smt.Satinderjeet Kaur v ITO reported in 52 TTJ
388 (ITAT Chandigarh Bench Chandigarh)
5
"It is true that commission has been paid at a
unif orm rate and no written agreements have
been entered into. It is, ho wever not necessary
that there must be written agreement bef ore a
particular commission payment is allo wed as a
deduction. One has to look into the surrounding
circumstances include the aff idavits of the
parties, their statements, the details of the
parties to whom the sales were effected, copies
of the account of the commission agents and
their admission that they did receive the
commission f rom the assessee.
The Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Bajrang Dal Mills on 30 September, 2005
3. CIT v Dal mia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. reported in
254 ITR 377 (Delhi High Court )
It is to be noted that in the present case the
question that has been raised by the Revenue is
not one rel ating to the expenditure being not f or
the purpose of the business. It is an question of
the appropriate amount which would have been
paid as commission. In f act the AO himself has
allo wed to the extent of Rs.4,35,854/- holding
inter al ia, "the payment of Rs.1.75 per MT to
cement distributors Ltd. is very much on the
excessive side". This in our vie w was
impermissible within the f rame work of s.37 of
the Act. The jurisdiction of the Revenue is
conf ined to 'deciding the real ty of the
expenditure" namely whether the amount
claimed as deduction was f actually expended or
;laid do wn and whether it was wholly and
exclusively f or the purpose of the business. The
reasonableness of the expenditure could gone
into only f or the purpose of determining whether,
in f act, the amount was spent. Once it is
established that there was a nexus between the
expenditure and the purpose of the business, the
Revenue cannot justif iably claim to put itself in
6
the armchair of a businessman or in the position
of the board of directors and assume the said
role to decide ho w much is a reasonable
expenditure having regard to the circumstances
of the case.
Section 37 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Smt. Arvinder Kaur vs Ito on 8 October, 2004
All the persons were
identif iable, details of sales made through them was
avail able; payment was made through account payee
cheque incase of all persons except one to whom it has
been paid in kind and had been accounted f or by each
person in his return of income. The increase in
commission expenses cannot be the basis of any
disallo wance especially when the genuineness of the
same stands established. The expenses have been
incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of
7
business keeping in vie w the ratio of judgment of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sassoon J David
Company P.Ltd. v CIT 118 ITR 261 and the Hon'ble
jurisdictional ITAT in the case of Smt.Satinder jeet
Kaur v ITO 52 TTJ 388, it is held that the ld. AO was
not justif ied in making disallo wance of commission
expenses of Rs.1162770/-. The addition of
Rs.1162770/- is theref ore deleted."
1