TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 1519X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pectfully following the precedent, we uphold the impugned order in granting the deduction in respect of retainership fee paid. Disallowance of deduction in respect of guest house expenses - Held that:- Tribunal was pleased to grant deduction in respect of guest house expenses vide its aforestated order for the assessment year 2004-05. In the absence of any distinguishing feature having been brought to our notice by the learned Departmental representative, we uphold the impugned order in allowing deduction of the guest house expenses. This ground fails. Disallowance of belated payment of provident fund, employees' State insurance, sales tax and other statutory liabilities - Held that:- amendment to the first proviso and the omissio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant : Shri A.P. Roy, SR-DR For the Respondent : Shri D.S. Damle, AR ORDER R. S. Syal (Accountant Member).- This appeal by the Revenue emanates from the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-XXIV, Kolkata ( CIT(A) for short) on November 30, 2011 in relation to the assessment year (AY) 2005-06. 2. The first ground is against the deletion of addition on account of expenditure incurred towards retainership fee paid to M/s. Sreebala P. Ltd. 3. Having heard both sides and perused the relevant material on record, it is noticed that the authorities below have relied on their respective decisions taken in the earlier years on the same ground for the purpose of not allowing and allowing the deduction. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Amount (Rs.) Due date Payment date Nature 84,153 15.04.05 19.04.05 Employees contribution to PF 82,552 15.09.04 16.09.04 Employees contribution to PF 1,25,941 15.09.04 08.12.04 Employees contribution to PF 5,480 15.09.04 18.11.04 Employer s contribution to PF 1,890 15.09.04 18.11.04 Employer s contribution to PF ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gh Court in CIT v. AIMIL Ltd. [2010] 321 ITR 508 (Delhi) considered under section 2(24)(x) along with section 36(1) and allowed deduction in respect of the employees' share which was paid before the due date as per section 139(1) of the Act. In view of the aforestated precedents, we are of the considered opinion that the view taken by the learned requires no modification and this ground is not allowed. 8. The last ground is against the deletion of addition under the head Aircraft flying rights charges . The facts a propos this ground are that the assessee claimed deduction of ₹ 3.40 crores in respect of aircraft flying rights charges . On being called upon to justify the deduction, the assessee stated that it entered into an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cessary material to indicate that the aircraft was taken on hire for its business purposes. The Assessing Officer is not competent to decide the business expediency of incurring any expenditure. Be that as it may, it is observed that the Assessing Officer did not deny that log book of the aircraft was not furnished but only that the purpose for which the journeys were undertaken or the names of the persons who undertook the travel was not specified in the log book. It is in such circumstances, that he held 25 per cent. of the expenditure was for non-business purpose. It is relevant to note that we are dealing with a case of a limited company. It is a settled legal position that there can be no disallowance of any expenditure on account of p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
