Single Judge Bench held that the ITAT's conclusions that the disallowance under Section 40A could not be sustained due to lack of AO scrutiny. No substantial question of law arises, appeal dismissed.
Appeal dismissed; it was held that the disallowance made under Section 40A could not be sustained.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AM UL YA
a
the, view of CIT(A) who had relied upon CIT y. Gautam Motors 2011 (334) ITR 326 (Del). , , ' '
This Court has considered the submissions. The ITAT followed the reasoning of the Supreme Court in 'Excel Industries (supra) and also the judgment in CIT v. Glaxo Smithkline Asia (P)iLtd. 2010 (195) Taxmann 35. The lack of any scrutiny by the AO as to the nature of discounts provided to third parties, in our opinion, justified the ITAT's conclusions that in the circumstances of the case, the disallowance made under Section 40A could not be sustained.
No substantial question of law arises. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. •
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J
NAJMI WAZIRI, J
1 issue framed by the court
Whether substantial question of law arises regarding the disallowance under Section 40A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, considering the discounts arranged between related parties and lack of explanation
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gautam MotorsReferred¶3
Gautam Motors 2011 (334) ITR 326 (Del.)
Excel IndustriesFollowed¶5
Excel Industries (supra)
CIT v. Glaxo Smithkline Asia (P) Ltd.Followed¶5
CIT v. Glaxo Smithkline Asia (P) Ltd. 2010 (195) Taxmann 35
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Assessee/Respondent
Revenue/Appellant
S. Ravindra Bhat
Najmi Waziri
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
