Case Law Details

Case Name : ACIT Vs Shri Damodar Dass Batra (ITAT Delhi)
Appeal Number : ITA No. 4197/Del./2010
Date of Judgement/Order : 21/02/2014
Related Assessment Year :
Courts : All ITAT (5511) ITAT Delhi (1250)

CA Sandeep Kanoi

ACIT Vs. Shri Damodar Dass Batra (ITAT Delhi)

Issue – The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 11,23,263/- made by the A.O. without considering the fact that these commission expenses are bogus and fictitious and could not be fully substantiated by the assessee.

Held by CIT (A)

Appellant has been serving as a Real Estate Broker who buys and sells properties of well-known Developers/Builders. An established fact in this trade is that commission/rebate/incentive, called by whatever name, is passed on to the early investors or the investors who buy the bulk of property and who make the ready cash advance. It is also an established fact that the real estate broker also passes on a part of such commission, called by whatever name, to their clients. Therefore, the commercial expediency of such payments is very much justified.

Held by ITAT

We have heard both the sides on the issue. We find that in the assessee’ s business, it is a common practice to provide rebate or commission or incentive to various persons with whom the assessee has brokered the deal, therefore, we find that commission has been paid for the business purpose of the assessee. In view of these facts, we find no merits in this ground of revenue’s appeal.

Download Judgment/Order

Author Bio

Qualification: CA in Practice
Company: Taxguru / Sandeep Kanoi & Associates
Location: Mumbai, Maharashtra, IN
Member Since: 27 Feb 2017 | Total Posts: 646
A Blogger by Passion and a Chartered Accountant by Profession. View Full Profile

My Published Posts

More Under Income Tax

Posted Under

Category : Income Tax (28359)
Type : Judiciary (12662)
Tags : CA Sandeep Kanoi (282) ITAT Judgments (5690)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Featured Posts