Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2019 (4) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (4) TMI 218 - KERALA HIGH COURTAllowability of club expenses u/s 37 - business or personal expenditure - expenses towards procuring membership in the 'club' for arranging various comforts and convenience - HELD THAT:- As decided in assessee's own case [2019 (4) TMI 82 - KERALA HIGH COURT] the order passed by the CIT(Appeals) in favour of the Assessee was upheld and the appeal preferred by the Revenue was dismissed in relation to the challenge against 'club expenses'. The finding arrived at by the Tribunal is well supported by reasons. The amount spent for acquiring membership in the Clubs stands on a different pedestal from the amounts incurred for availing materials supplied or service provided in the clubs. This Court finds that the said issue is to be answered in favour of the Assessee. Disallowance of commission alleging diversion of income - Sum paid by the suppliers of the Assessee to various investment companies as assessable as income of the Assessee company - HELD THAT:- As decided in assessee's own case [2019 (4) TMI 79 - KERALA HIGH COURT] addition deleted by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the appeal filed by the Assessee, holding that the same is not correct or sustainable and that the said commission receipts were to be assessed at the hands of the investment companies and not at the hands of the Assessee. This was affirmed by the Tribunal in Annexure-C order, holding that the aforesaid commissions have already been substantively assessed at the hands of the investment companies. This being the position, it could not have been assessed at the hands of the Assessee under any circumstance. The said finding on fact is not assailable under any circumstance and we hold it against the Revenue. Concealment of income by selling good tyres as defective second tyres - HELD THAT:- As decided in assessee's own case there cannot be any addition on the basis of surmises or conjectures and that the accounts were accepted and not rejected; adding that such reduction in the value was because of the defects with reference to the consumer complaints. The said finding was affirmed by the Tribunal. We are of the view that this is purely a 'question of fact' answered with reference to the materials on record and no interference is warranted at our hands, as no substantial question of law is involved Addition for lack of proper vouchers - HELD THAT:- As decided in assessee's own case as per Annexure-C order under challenge, the Tribunal held that there was no valid ground to call for interference with the order passed by the Commissioner. The said 'finding on fact' is not liable to be interdicted by this Court, for want of any substantial question of law. Question stands answered against the Revenue. Rent paid for a building not used for the business purpose - HELD THAT:- As decided in assessee's own case there was no tenable ground. In fact, it is borne out from the materials on record that the Chairman and Managing Director of the Assessee Company was also the Chairman and Managing Director of some other companies as well, who are housed in the building in question and as such, the dis-allowance/restriction to an extent of 50% came to be sustained. We do not find any reason to interdict the said finding and reasoning and no substantial question of law (but for a question of fact) is brought to our notice. It stands answered against the Revenue. Depreciation on increased liability due to foreign currency fluctuation u/s 43A - HELD THAT:- This question has been answered against the Revenue, as per our verdict passed in assessee's own case [2019 (4) TMI 82 - KERALA HIGH COURT] by virtue of the rulings rendered in Commissioner of Income Tax,Delhi vs. Woodward Governor India P.Ltd [2009 (4) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT] and Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd, Dehradun, through Managing Director vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Dehradun. [2010 (3) TMI 81 - SUPREME COURT] Deduction u/s 80HHC on the basis of finally assessed income - HELD THAT:- Clause (baa) of Explanation to section 80HHC lays down that 'profits of business' means the profits of business as computed under the head “Profits and gains of business or profession”. Thus, where adjustments are made by the Assessing Officer to the profits of business computed by the Assessee in its return of income the assessed profit is to be considered for the purpose of computing deduction u/s.80HHC. Allowability of interest income on deposit for deduction u/s 80IA? - HELD THAT:- For giving deduction under Section 80IA, the income shall be relatable to the business of the Assessee; whereas in the instant case, the disputed income is the income generated by way of interest from the amounts deposited by the Assessee elsewhere and it is having no relation to the business activity of the Assessee. This is the dictum laid down in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Jose Thomas [2001 (11) TMI 73 - KERALA HIGH COURT]. Though the said decision is with reference to the mandate for deduction under Section 80HHC, the ratio/dictum is the same.
|