Held that  the Assessing Officer had not denied the authenticity of the vouchers or invoices filed by the assessee during the assessment proceedings, but had stated that the said invoices did not bear the signature of the recipient who was benefited by the discount. The assessee had substantiated its claim that the computer generated bills did not contain the signature of either the assessee or the customer. The Assessing Officer had not established that the assessee had received any sum over and above the net amount billed to the clients. Apart from the fact that these vouchers were unsigned, the Assessing Officer had failed to justify the disallowance  claimed as handling charges or discounts given by the assessee to its customers. (AY.  2011-12)