Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2016 (8) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (8) TMI 909 - HC - Income TaxAddition u/s 40A(2)(a) - whether the appellant has substantiated the plea that the visits made to foreign countries were for promotion of business? - Addition u/s 69C - Held that:- It is the categorical admission of the learned counsel for the appellant that no documents were produced, either, before the Original Authority or Appellate Authority, as the case may be, to prove that there was any business transactions or activity in the foreign countries, visited by the Directors of the appellant-Company, on the said aspect. Pilgrimage to Mecca and Medina is substantiated and finding on that aspect, has not been disputed. From the above materials, it could be safely concluded that the appellant has failed to discharge the burden to prove that the visit to the above countries was only for the business purpose. The said finding recorded by the appellate authority, the expenses incurred for pilgrimage, has not been disputed and no materials have been filed to contradict the same. When the appellant has failed to substantiate that the visit to Mecca and Medina by the Directors, in whose names, tickets were issued and spent money through their credit cards for the stay in hotels, SPA, etc., was for promotion of business, only it cannot be contended that both the original/appellate authorities have erred, in not properly adverting to the statutory provisions, under Sections 40A(2)(a) and 69C of the Income-Tax Act, 1961. On facts, when the appellant did not satisfy the requirements for claiming deductions, disallowance has to consequently follow. Thus, the disallowance under the head, “Business Promotion Charges”and under the head, “Foreign Travel Expenditure”, cannot be said to be said to be erroneous, both on law and facts. - Decided against assessee.
|