Sonam Jain vs Income Tax Officer

This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2020-21 arises against the C IT(A)/NFAC, De lhi’ s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1081007249(1) dated 22.09.2025, in proceed ings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in shor t “the Act”).

Heard both the p arties at length. Case file perused.

It emerges at the outset d uring the co urse of hearing that the assessee/appellant challeng es the le arned C IT(A)/NFAC’s action partly restricting assessment findings invoking section 40(a)(ia) disallowance of Rs.34,36,654/- @30% thereof; coming to Rs.10,30,996/-, in the lower appellate discussion.

That being the case, Mr. Shuk la vehemently argues that the imp ugned disallowance has been rightly invoked in the assessee’s hands since she had failed to ded uct TDS on commission paid to vario us e-marking companies namely, Amazon, Flipkart and other similar portals. He could hardly dispute that the clinching fact emerging from the assessme nt order itself at page 4 that the actual commission fee involved herein is Rs.7,90,536/- which does no t include collection fee, fixed fee, listing fee and shipping fee involving varying sums. This tribunal is accord ingly of the considered view that the impugned disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act could no t have been invoked for any other expenditure than the commission fee which involves Rs.7 ,90,536/- incurred by the assessee. The learned Assessing Officer is accordingly d irected to re-compute the impugned section 40(a)(ia) disallowance in the assessee’s hands going by the above commission fee expenditure only as per law. Ordered accordingly.

This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed.