Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2010 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (2) TMI 915 - ITAT, BANGALOREAddition on account of remunerations paid u/s 40A(2)(b) - CIT(A) deleted the remunerations paid holding that the provisions of s.40A(2)(b) were not applicable; and in earlier years no such remuneration was paid and no details/documents produced in support of its claim – Held that:- On an identical issue, the Hon'ble highest judiciary of the land in the case of S.A. Builders vs. CIT (A) and Another [2006 (12) TMI 82 - SUPREME COURT] had agreed with the view taken in Dalmia Cement (B.) Ltd. case [2001 (9) TMI 48 - DELHI High Court] that "the Revenue cannot justifiably claim to put itself in the arm-chair of the businessman or in the position of the Board of Directors and assume the role to decide how much is reasonable expenditure having regard to the circumstances of the case. No businessman can be compelled to maximize his profit. The Income-tax authorities must put themselves in the shoes of the assessee how a prudent businessman would act. The authorities must not look at the matter from their own view point, but, that of a prudent businessman. CIT (A) is justified in his endeavour in reversing the finding of the AO on this score. Disallowing of foreign travel expenses – Held that:- Neither the AO nor the first appellate authority had established with any documentary evidence to justify that the claim of the assessee was excessive or not connected with the business expediency, authorities below were not justified in disallowing 50% of expenditure claimed on foreign travel. Interest u/s 234B and 234D of the Act - assessee itself denies liable to be charged interest u/s 234B and 234D of the Act – Held that:- Charging of interest u/s 234B of the Act is mandatory and consequential in nature and, thus, is dismissed as not maintainable, charging of interest u/s 234D of the Act, levy of interest u/s 234D is a purely legal ground and is chargeable following the order of the Special Bench in ITO vs. Ekta Promoters P. Ltd. (2008 (7) TMI 452 - ITAT DELHI-E ). It is ordered accordingly
|