Hindalco Industries Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2024)114 ITR 502 (Mum)(Trib)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Commission payments-Non-service of notice under section 133(6)-Evidence and details furnished in remand report-Denial of expenditure for mere return of summons unserved is improper.[S.133(6)]

That deduction claimed for the amount paid as commission could not be disallowed merely on the ground that the summons served on the parties came back unserved, when the assessee had produced all evidence and details before the Commissioner (Appeals) as additional evidence on which a remand report had also been sought. Accordingly, no addition could be made on the amount paid as commission. (AY.2003-04)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

*