M/s. Jyoti Controls v. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Range 22(1), Vashi
[Citation -2016-LL-0923-196]

Citation 2016-LL-0923-196
Appellant Name M/s. Jyoti Controls
Respondent Name The Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Range 22(1), Vashi
Court ITAT-Mumbai
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 23/09/2016
Assessment Year 2009-10
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags quantity discount • retention money • group company • excise duty • written off • sales tax
Bot Summary: PAN GIR No. : AAEFJ7515K. Assessee by: Shri Ravindra Kumar Jain Department by: Shri B.S.Bist Date of Hearing: 03.06.2016 Date of Pronouncement: 23.09.2016 O R D E R PER AMARJIT SINGH JM: The assessee has filed the present appeal against the order dated 28.09.2012 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax 33 Mumbai hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A) relevant to the A.Y.2009-10. The appellant prays and submits that the addition of Rs.96 277 - as excise duty has been wrongly treated as income being difference because of entry made by the assessee in the books of account and in the excise books and same has been absorbed by the vendor i.e. Siemens Ltd. 2. Therefore not justified in disallowing the amount of Rs.1 23 12 500 - with whom the assessee had the total business. The brief fact of the case are that the assessee filed the return of income on 31.03.2010 declaring the total income to the tune of Rs.66 36 290 -. According to issue no.2 the assessee has challenged the confirmation of disallowance to the tune of Rs.1 23 12 500 - being amount written off in respect of discount to Siemens Ltd. The learned representative of the assessee has argued that the Siemens Ltd. has confirmed the retention money to the tune of Rs.2 16 19 897 -. In view of the said circumstances we are of the view that the CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the disallowance of Rs.1 23 12 500 - being amount of written off in respect of quantity discount to M s. Siemens Ltd. Therefore we set aside the finding of the CIT(A) on this issue and allowed the written off amount of Rs.1 23 12 500 - being amount of written off in respect of quantity discount to M s. Siemens Ltd. Accordingly this issue is decided in favour of the assessee against the revenue ISSUE NO.3:- 6. The assessee has paid the professional fees to the 14 parties and TDS has been deducted at the time of payment.


IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL J BENCH MUMBAI . . BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH JM I.T.A. No.5468 Mum 2013 ( Assessment Year: 2009-10) M s. Jyoti Controls Deputy Commissioner 412 4 t h Floor of Income Tax Range 22(1) Vs. Shree Sai Dham CHS Vashi Tilak Road Zulelal Chowk Ghatkopar (W) Mumbai - 400077 . . PAN GIR No. : AAEFJ7515K ( Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Ravindra Kumar Jain Department by: Shri B.S.Bist Date of Hearing: 03.06.2016 Date of Pronouncement: 23.09.2016 O R D E R PER AMARJIT SINGH JM: assessee has filed present appeal against order dated 28.09.2012 passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 33 Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as CIT(A) ] relevant to A.Y.2009-10. ITA No.5468 M 2013 A.Y. 2009-10 2. assessee has raised following grounds:- 1. appellant prays and submits that addition of Rs.96 277 - as excise duty has been wrongly treated as income being difference because of entry made by assessee in books of account and in excise books and same has been absorbed by vendor i.e. Siemens Ltd. 2. appellant prays that disallowance of Rs.1 23 12 500 - being amount written off in respect of discount to Siemens Ltd. is wrong and bad in law as same is to be treated as sales discount. Therefore not justified in disallowing amount of Rs.1 23 12 500 - with whom assessee had total business. 3. appellant prays that appellant authority has erred in not considering matter of disallowance of professional fees of Rs.12 39 000 - in appellate order. 4. assessee has submitted letter for rectification to appellant authority for supplementary order but not accepted by authority therefore it has been sent by Courier to same and CC to Assessing Officer. 3. brief fact of case are that assessee filed return of income on 31.03.2010 declaring total income to tune of Rs.66 36 290 -. assessment was completed u s.143(3) of Income Tax Act 1961 ( in short Act ) on 20.12.2011 determining total income to tune of Rs.9 04 89 200 -. CIT(A) has confirmed disallowance to tune of Rs.1 23 12 500 - on account of sale discount to M s. Siemens Ltd. and also confirmed disallowance of Rs.12 39 000 - and confirmed 2 ITA No.5468 M 2013 A.Y. 2009-10 addition of Rs.96 277 - which was excise duty therefore present appeal has been filed before us. ISSUE NO.1:- 4. learned representative of assessee did not press ground no.1 which is in connection with addition of Rs.96 277 - of excise duty. Therefore in said circumstances we dismissed this ground of appeal being not pressed. ISSUE NO.2:- 5. According to issue no.2 assessee has challenged confirmation of disallowance to tune of Rs.1 23 12 500 - being amount written off in respect of discount to Siemens Ltd. learned representative of assessee has argued that Siemens Ltd. has confirmed retention money to tune of Rs.2 16 19 897 -. Therefore in said circumstances amount of Rs.1 23 12 500 - which is less than said retention amount is liable to be allowed in interest of justice. It is also argued that details of retention money held by Siemens Ltd. has also been placed on record therefore retention money to tune of Rs.2 16 19 897 - as on 31.03.2009 is not in dispute but CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed disallowance to tune of Rs.1 23 12 500 - which is required to be allowed in interest of justice. However on other hand learned representative of department has placed reliance upon 3 ITA No.5468 M 2013 A.Y. 2009-10 order passed by CIT(A) in question. On appraisal of order on record it came into notice that Assessing Officer by virtue of letter dated 08.11.20111 requisitioned relevant record from M s.Siemens Ltd. and in reply to this letter M s.Siemens Ltd. was having retention amount to tune of Rs.2 16 19 897 - as on 31.03.2009 M s. Siemens Ltd. also furnished details of retention money which was held by them. It is not in dispute that retention money which was held by M s. Siemens Ltd. was more than written off amount of Rs.1 23 12 500 -. In view of said circumstances we are of view that CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed disallowance of Rs.1 23 12 500 - being amount of written off in respect of quantity discount to M s. Siemens Ltd. Therefore we set aside finding of CIT(A) on this issue and allowed written off amount of Rs.1 23 12 500 - being amount of written off in respect of quantity discount to M s. Siemens Ltd. Accordingly this issue is decided in favour of assessee against revenue ISSUE NO.3:- 6. Issue no.3 is in connection with disallowance of professional fees to tune of Rs.12 39 000 -. Assessing Officer disallowed professional fees to tune of Rs.12 39 000 -. assessee has paid professional fees to 14 parties and TDS has been deducted at time of payment. TDS has duly been reflected in return filed by assessee. There is no plausible 4 ITA No.5468 M 2013 A.Y. 2009-10 explanation on record as to why said professional fees has been disallowed. Copy of income tax returns in connection with this professional fees are on record which is reproduced below:- 1. Bakulesh M. Nagarsheth Rs.50 000 - TDS Rs.5150 - copy of ITR and other relevant details enclosed. He is director of instrument Company and he has versed knowledge in computer and all field related to instrument business. 2. Bunty B. Nagarsheth Rs.1 00 000 - TDS Rs.10 900 - copy of ITR and other relevant details enclosed. He is son of Director of Company and he has versed knowledge in computer and all field related to instrument business. 3. Mehta & Sons Rs.12 000 - TDS NIL Copy of Bill enclosed. This firm is reputed and doing consultancy in labour Law ESIC PF etc. He is labour Law consultant. 4. Nayak & Associates (Prop. V. B. Nayak) Rs.90 000 - TDS Rs.9000 - His ITR for A.Y.12-13 and copy of invoice enclosed for reference. He is well versed in accounts and doing all types of reconciliation in respect of banks sales tax excises set off of sales tax etc. He is in this field for more than 35 years. 5. Pooja Darshan Nagarsheth Rs.1 50 000 - TDS Rs.15 450 - 5 ITA No.5468 M 2013 A.Y. 2009-10 copy of ITR and bill enclosed. She is well versed in Computer Data Entry and Proceeding. 6. Sunil Nagarsheth Rs.50 000 - TDS Rs.5150 - copy of ITR copy of bill and other details enclosed. He is well versed in Consultancy and lessening in respect of instrument industry. He is also Director of his Group Company i.e.Altop Industries Limited. 7. details have been placed on record in which they have been shown to receive said professional income which have duly been reflected in their return. Copy of bill with regard to other professional fees have also been placed on record on which TDS have been deducted. receivers have confirmed the professional fees by way of receipt of payment. Therefore in said circumstances there is no reason to disallow said professional fees. Therefore we allowed professional fees to tune of Rs.12 39 000 -. Accordingly this issue is decided in favour of assessee against revenue. 8. In result appeal filed by assessee is hereby Allowed. 6 ITA No.5468 M 2013 A.Y. 2009-10 Order pronounced in open court on 23rd September 2016. Sd - Sd - (R.C.SHARMA) (AMARJIT SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated : 23rd September 2016 MP Copy of Order forwarded to : 1. Appellant 2. Respondent. 3. ( ) CIT(A)- 4. CIT 5. DR ITAT Mumbai 6. Guard file. BY ORDER True Copy (Dy. Asstt. Registrar) ITAT Mumbai 7 M/s. Jyoti Controls v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Range 22(1), Vashi
Report Error