Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2010 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (10) TMI 200 - AT - Income TaxPersonal expenditure - section 37(1) - Search and seizure - Held that:- the decision for sending the son of the director of the assessee-company was taken even prior to the alleged appointment of said son as a Managing Trainee. Moreover, the said appointment was even prior to the age of 18 years of the son of the director and thus, it appears that giving appointment as a Management Trainee was only with a view to claim the expenses on education. he Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of M. Subramaniam Bros. v. CIT, (2000 (12) TMI 67 - MADRAS High Court) after following the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Hindustan Hosiery Industries (1993 -TMI - 19982 - BOMBAY High Court) has taken a similar view when the assessee firm founded by the father admitted his children even when they were minor to the benefit of the firm, the children continued their studies even after attaining the age of majority. One of the sons was sent abroad for further study could not be regarded as a deputation made by the firm of one of its partners in connection with the business of the assessee-firm. when the son of the director of the assessee company had just completed his schooling and in any case had to take further education/study and the expenditure is to be incurred by the parents being personal in the nature cannot be claimed as business expenses. - Decided against the assessee.
|