Dismissing the appeal the Tribunal held that the documentary evidence on record clearly suggested that the assessee entered into the genuine business activities with the sub-broker and sub-broker rendered services for the business activity of the assessee. In the group case the Commissioner (Appeals) had already deleted a similar addition finding the commission payment made to the same sub-broker genuine. Order of CIT (A) was affirmed. (AY. 2008-09)
Dy. CIT v. Realistic Realitors Pvt. Ltd. (2021) 87 ITR 30 (SN) (Delhi) (Trib.)
S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Payment to sub-broker-Statement of third party was not confronted-No disallowance can be made.