Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2015 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (7) TMI 534 - ITAT MUMBAIDisallowance of lunch expenses to personnel on outdoor duty - Held that:- In the assessment year 1992-93, the Tribunal following earlier order for AY 1991-92 has upheld the disallowance of lunch expenses to the extent of ₹ 2 lakhs. Whereas, in the assessment year 1995-96, the Tribunal has held that lunch expenses incurred for the employees during the course of outdoor duties is to be allowed u/s 37(3) and accordingly, following the same, we direct the AO to allow the lunch expenses of the employees incurred on the outdoor duty. Thus, this issue is decided in favour of the assessee. Disallowance of Foreign Travel expenses - Held that:- this issue has been decided by the Tribunal not only in the earlier years but also in the assessment year 1995-96 wherein, the Tribunal vide para No. 37 has deleted the said addition after following the earlier years orders of the Tribunal. Thus, respectfully following the earlier years precedence and also the order for the assessment year 1995-96, we direct the AO to delete the said addition. - Decided in favour of the assessee. Disallowance for total expenses and air fares of foreign visitors in India - Held that:- A mistake has been crept in the order of the Tribunal, wherein, it has been noted that the said ground is not pressed, which fact is not correct. Accordingly, we rectify the same and hold that such expenses are to be allowed as similar disallowances have been deleted by the Tribunal not only in the assessment years 1992-93 and 1993-94 but also in the assessment year 1995-96 - Decided in favour of the assessee. Excess and short provision of expenditure - assessee had mainly challenged the adding back of the amount of provisions of expenses as on year end based on estimates for which actual bills were not received - Held that:- The assessee has been making the provisions for expenses in respect of services and goods received during the previous year for which bill is not received till the time of the provision is made and payment is made on later date upon the receipt of the bill. Such a claim of provision has been made as assessee was following mercantile method of accounting. If there was some excess provision as compared to the actual payment made to the assessee in the later year then same needs to be added back. The Ld. CIT(A) after confirming the said addition had directed the AO to consider this aspect in the subsequent year by reducing the income offered by the assessee in that year to the amount of the excess provision written back to avoid double taxation. So far as addition on this account is concerned, the finding of the Tribunal in para 5 & 6 cannot be disturbed, because if such an excess provision has been added back and directions have been given to the AO that he should reduce the income offered by the assessee on such a provision written back by the assessee, there is no merits in allowing such excess provision in this year, as direction has been already given for consequential relief in the next year. This year, no different stand can be taken. Disallowance on account of expenses pertaining to the assessment year 1993-94, which were actually incurred in the year under consideration and there was short provision made in the earlier year - Held that:- We feel persuaded to agree with the contention of the Ld. Sr. Counsel that, if the excess provision is being disallowed on the ground that actual bills for which payment has been made is less than the provision and same should be added in the year of excess provision, then on same logic it has to be held that if the assessee’s actual payment is more than the provisions made, then assessee should be granted deduction in respect of short provision made, because, it would lead to jeopardy to the assessee. However, we find it difficult to take a contrary view, within the limited scope of section 254(2), as it will amount to review of the earlier order, which is not permissible. More so, in the wake of the fact that in AY 1993-94, the Tribunal has dismissed this point raised by the assessee in Miscellaneous Application, as fairly pointed out by the Ld. Sr. Counsel. Accordingly, we decline to interfere with the conclusion of the Tribunal VRS expenses in respect of Bhandup unit works and Head office employees - Held that:- In this year the only issue was that of incremental liability towards payment of pension under VRS Scheme. There was no need for any actuarial valuation certificate or examination of agreements. Moreover, in this year, the Ld. CIT(A) has already verified the same. Therefore, there was no need for the Tribunal to set aside the issue to the file of the AO for re-examination and this fact seems to be omitted by the Tribunal while giving the finding that same is covered by the earlier order of the Tribunal. Accordingly, we hold that there is no need for verification either of the agreement or actuarial valuation certificate; as firstly, this has already been examined by the Ld. CIT(A); secondly, in this year it has incurred only incremental liability; and lastly, the Tribunal in AY 1995-96has already modified the similar finding. Accordingly, the present Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee is allowed.
|