9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 462X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act made by the Assessing Officer without supplying the reasons recorded for re- opening of assessment and without appreciating the Provisions of law that section 147 is not intended for disallowance u/s. 40A(3) of the Act out of payment allowed in original assessment. The re-assessment should be held as invalid law." 3. At the time of hearing Ld. AR for the assessee submitted that he is not pressing this ground of appeal and has also made endorsement on the grounds of appeal attached with the appeal memo to this effect and hence this ground of appeal for all the year under consideration is dismissed as not pressed. 4. Second common ground of appeal in all the years under consideration except for change in figure reads as under:- "2. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isfaction of the conditions prescribed in Rule 6DD when payments were made in cash at a time in excessive of the amount prescribed u/s. 40A(3) of the Act. In other words, when payments were made by the assessee were within the limit specified u/s. 40A(3) of the Act, the genuine business expenditure could not be disallowed by the AO merely because the assessee could not satisfy to the AO about business exigencies for which payments were made in cash. Our above view finds support from the decision of Hon'ble Orissa High Court in the case of CIT vs. Aloo Supply Company 121 ITR 680. 8. Further this Bench of the Tribunal in the case of N.R. Paper Board Ltd vs. ACIT in ITA No. 4371/Ahd/2007 in the assessment year 2003-04 order dated 19-10-20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the company for the business of the company. The AO was of the view that it was hard to imagine that telephone installed in the residence of the employees and directors and mobile phones used by them absolutely no personal use is always there. In view of these facts he disallowed 1/5th of the expenses amounting to Rs. 1,53,974/- on the ground that it was not incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business of the assessee. 11. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance on the ground that the AO has given a finding that the telephone expenses were not included in the FBT and there cannot be any doubt that there is no personal element in the use of telephone. 12. The Ld. AR of the assessee relined on the decisions of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the perquisites given to the directors formed part of their "remuneration" under the Explanation to section 198 of the Companies Act, 1956, for the purpose of determining their remuneration under section 309 of that Act. Once such remuneration was fixed as provided in section 309 it was not possible to state that the assessee incurred the expenditure for the personal use of the directors. Even if there was any personal use by the directors that was as per the terms and conditions of service and, in so far as the assessee was concerned, it was business expenditure and no part of the expenditure could be disallowed/' Ld. DR could not cite any contrary decision. Therefore respectfully following the decision of Hon'ble jurisdiction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
