Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2022 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (9) TMI 150 - AT - Income TaxForeign Travelling Expenses - Disallowance as expenses not incurred for business purposes - HELD THAT:- We are of the considered opinion that owing to the nature of business of the assessee company, which works as an agent in India and abroad dealing in non conventional energy engineering equipments, it is obligatory for the directors to travel abroad for the purpose of business of the assessee. It is also pertinent to point out that the assessee has earned commission income arising out of the foreign travel in subsequent years also. We conclude that the said expenses claimed by the assessee was for business purpose thereby allowing this ground of appeal filed by the assessee. Revision u/s 264 - CIT- A directing the AO to reduce sale consideration due to revised sale price and the share of M/s WMI Cranes Ltd as the assessee had finally received lesser consideration from the funds that was in the escrow account as per the terms of sale agreement - HELD THAT:- As observed that the assessee has raised an additional ground before the Ld.CIT(A) claiming that the actual consideration received on sale of shares of WMI Cranes Ltd was less than the consideration taken for computing the capital gains after reducing the amount of consideration which was transferred to the escrow account. CIT(A) though has called for the remand report from the AO has failed to adjudicate on the additional ground filed by the assessee on the contention that the same was a subject of petition under section 264 before the Principal CIT-7, Mumbai. CIT(A) has held that since this ground was raised in an application u/s 264 before the PCIT thereby rejected, the Ld.CIT(A) held that he had no jurisdiction to consider the same grounds in appeal before him. CIT(A) has erred in not deciding this ground of appeal filed as additional ground before him by the assessee which ought to have been decided on merits. CIT(A) is not barred from deciding this ground of appeal on merits inspite of the fact that section 264 application was rejected by the PCIT-7, Mumbai. On the above observation, we direct the Ld.CIT(A) to consider this ground of appeal on merits and adjudicate the issue pertaining to the reduction of capital gain. We remand back this file to the Ld.CIT(A) for deciding this issue on merits.
|