TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 176X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nnot forget this fact that similar claim of the assessee has been allowed by the Revenue during the earlier and subsequent assessment year and we are unable to see any valid reason to make such disallowance which has been established by the assessee by way or proper explanation that the professional charges paid to her husband has been incurred against professional assistant extended by him (her husband Shri Pradeep Arora) to her after his retirement from an administrative managerial post. In this situation, we decline to accept disallowance made by A.O and upheld by the CIT(A) and thus we demolish the same. In view of our forgetting discussion, the A.O is directed to delete the addition and to allow the claim of the assessee in this regard ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the CIT(A) on newly purchase Honda City is not called for and we direct the A.O to allow the same - Decided in favour of assessee Disallowance @ 20% of expenses debited under the head car repair maintenance, car running and maintenance - Held that:- Assessee has claimed depreciation on both the cars and we are unable to see that the assessee has any other car for personal use, in this situation, the element of personal use of a car cannot be ruled out and the use of cars for personal use has to be presumed in this situation disallowance has to be made regarding personal use of car towards car running maintenance and repair expenses. In the present case, the Assessing Officer made disallowance of 20% all expenses which has been upheld ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se for scrutiny and completed the assessment u/s 143 (3) of the Income-tax Act 1961 (for short the Act) on 21/11/2008 at total taxable income of ₹ 14,61,750/- as against the return income of ₹ 9,87,160/- by making certain disallowances pertaining to expenditure incurred in availing the professional services of the husband of the appellant, disallowance of depreciation and disallowance of certain expenses incurred in performing professional activities. The aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) which was also dismissed. Now, the empty handed assessee is before this Tribunal with the grounds reproduced hereinabove. Ground No.1 4. Apropos Ground, No.1, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cts noted by the CIT(A) in Para 2 it is clear that the assessee enjoys income from pension and medical practice in the field of Cardiology and the assessee also refers patient to various hospitals and had disclosed professional fees of ₹ 19,60,509/- which is not a minor income. We further observe that as per contention of the Ld. AR towards earning such huge professional income, the assessee paid ₹ 3,60,000/- to her husband Shri Pradeep Arora, which is a retired engineer from M/s Seimens Ltd. and has a vast knowledge in the field of medical profession and its administration. Therefore, this payment of professional charges made by the assessee cannot be held as unreasonable or bogus. We cannot forget this fact that similar claim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Honda City Car was purchased on 31/3/2006 and the utilization thereof for professional activities and for stand by parties does not exist. Therefore, he rightly made disallowance of ₹ 51, 492/-. The Ld. D.R also pointed out that the assessee placed incorrect calculation and depreciation in regard to Maruti Swift (therefore, the excess claim of deprecation worked out at ₹ 8,625/- was rightly disallowed by the A.O and CIT(A) was quite justified in upholding the same. 10. On careful consideration of above rival submissions, we note that after reproducing assessment order, the CIT(A) decided the issue in para 5.2 and arrived at the conclusion that the assesssee, a medical practitioner does not need two cars to operate of h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt in nature and some time if one car is showing some trouble so that the assessee has to keep a small car stand by to fulfill her responsibility of the professional work. Therefore, disallowance of deprecation made by the A.O and upheld by the CIT(A) on newly purchase Honda City is not called for and we direct the A.O to allow the same. Accordingly, Ground No. 2 of the assessee is allowed. GROUND NO. 3 11. Apropos Ground No. 3, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee pointed out that the Assessing Officer also made ad-hoc and arbitrary disallowance of ₹ 54,475/- @ 20% of expenses debited under the head car repair maintenance, car running and maintenance as there was no element of personal use by the assessee. Replying to the above, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
