Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2014 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (1) TMI 282 - ITAT DELHIDeletion on account of business development expenses – Supporting evidences not filed for proving the veracity of the expenses – Expenses u/s 37 of the Act or not – Held that:- The onus is on the assessee to prove the genuinity of the expenditure incurred by him and also to prove that the expenses are not personal expenses or capital expenses and have been incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business of the assessee - the expenses has been incurred in respect of the visit being undertaken by Mr. Rajiv Behal to China and payment made through his credit card and has been treated by the assessing officer to be a personal expenses of Mr. Rajiv Behal - Except the ledger account of business development expenditure being submitted, no other evidence was brought by the assessee on record to prove that the expenses were not the personal expenses and has been incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business – Order of the CIT(A) set aside and the matter remitted back to the AO – Decided in favour of assessee. Deletion made u/s 40A(2)(b) of the Act – Held that:- This is an undisputed fact that Shri Rajiv Behal who was paid salary and consultancy charges, was director of the company, till 20.12.2008 and till that he got remuneration at the rate of 2,00,000/- p.m. that is at the rate at which he was paid remuneration during the assessment year 2008-09 – later on, the company entered into agreement with Shri Rajiv Behal for rendering the professional services at the rate of 50,00,000/- p.a. and accordingly Shri Rajiv Behal was paid up to 31st March, 2009 - So far as the payment up to 20.12.2008 is concerned since the remuneration was found to be reasonable during the assessment year 2008-09, therefore, if the remuneration was paid at the same rate up to 20.12.2008 the remuneration paid cannot be regarded to be excess than the fair market value -the professional charges paid after 20.12.2008 till 31.03.2009, the provision of Section 40A(2)(b) are not applicable as Shri Rajiv Behal does not fall within the definition of the person referred to clause B of section 40A(2) – Decided against Revenue.
|