TMI Blog2012 (4) TMI 665X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he circumstances of the case and in law, the ld.CIT(Appeals) has erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 1099583/- made by disallowing the traveling expenses. (ii) The ld.CIT(A) has ignored the fact that no evidence for use of Chartered Aircraft for actual inspection of press machines at various places in a short span of time was filed either before the AO or before the CIT(A). 4. At the time of hearing before us, it is stated by the learned DR that during the year under consideration, the assessee has claimed the deduction for payment of `10,99,583/- on account of chartering of aircraft. The assessee could not give any satisfactory explanation for incurring of such expenditure on chartering of aircraft, therefore, the Assessing Of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he director who was looking after the production/quality control. He, therefore, submitted that the order of learned CIT(A) is quite fair and reasonable, the same should be sustained. He alternatively stated that if a view is taken that the assessee has not produced necessary evidence before the Assessing Officer, the matter may be set aside to the file of the Assessing Officer and the assessee will produce further evidence to establish that chartering of aircraft was for the purpose of business. 6. The learned DR, in the rejoinder, stated that he had no objection if the matter is set aside to the file of the Assessing Officer for examining whether the chartering of aircraft was for the purpose of business. 7. We have carefully consid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of producing the necessary evidence in support of its claim of chartering of aircraft. We also direct the assessee to produce necessary evidence/explanation before the Assessing Officer. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer will readjudicate the issue in accordance with law. 8. Ground No.3 of the Revenue s appeal reads as under:- On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld.CIT(Appeals) has erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 55802/- made on account of excess depreciation claimed on computer peripherals. 9. We have heard both the sides and perused the material placed before us. The Assessing Officer allowed the depreciation on computer accessories and peripherals at the rate of 15% as against 60% claime ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
