Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2015 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (4) TMI 96 - ITAT DELHIDisallowance of foreign travel and foreign exchange purchase - Held that:- Assessee has not been able to improve its case even before the ITAT as the assessee has failed to meet out the objections raised by the Assessing Officer to justify the claimed expenses. We thus do not find reasons to interfere with the first appellate order upholding the disallowance. - Decided against assessee. Disallowance of consultancy expenses - Held that:- There is no dispute on certain material facts that the assessee for the payment of consultancy charges to Shri Arvind Khanna against the services rendered by him, had complied with the provisions of sec. 314 of the Companies Act, 1956 as the assessee had taken due permission from the shareholder before appointing Shri Arvind Khanna as the consultant and the resolution was registered with the Office of the Registrar of the Company by filing Form No. 23. The copy of the agreement for consultancy services has been also made available. As per this, the consultant had to provide consultancy services to the company in the field of investment in shares, debentures and immoveable properties, management consultancy, business development and stratagistic alliance, overall business development and marketing assistance to the assessee while using his best business capability. Besides in the assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12, the revenue had allowed similar claim of payment of consultancy fee to Shri Arvind Khanna. We, thus do not find any reason with the revenue to deviate from its stand taken in other assessment years under similar facts and circumstances. The disallowance in question is thus directed to be deleted - Decided in favour of assessee. Unsecured loan under sec. 68 - It was explained that both the companies i.e. Neelgiri Infra-structure Dev. Ltd. and Nobleese Obliged Estates Pvt. Ltd. had advanced the amount for purchasing shares of the assessee company - Held that:- Assessing Officer had not denied the identity of the above two parties. Genuineness of the transaction is also established as the amount in question have been paid through account payee cheques. So far as creditworthiness of these parties are concerned, the Assessing Officer himself has mentioned that Neelgiri Ltd. had ₹ 110 crores of loan as on 31.3.2009 which itself proves the creditworthiness of Neelgiri to invest ₹ 7.5 crores with the assessee. Nobeleese Ltd. in response to the notice issued by the Assessing Officer had furnished its income tax return for the assessment year 2009-10, bank statement and confirmed copy of account with the A.O. There is no dispute that both the above companies are assessed to tax. Thus, we find that the assessee had discharged its primary onus by furnishing all the necessary documents and information to establish identity, creditworthiness of the creditors and genuineness of the transaction.We thus while setting aside the orders of the authorities below in this regard, direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition of ₹ 12,20,00,500 made on account of unsecured loan under sec. 68 of the Act. - Decided in favour of assessee.
|