TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 1651X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ompany - Held that:- CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee that Mrs. Patsy P. Mistry was a Director of the assessee-company and wife of the Chairman of the Company Mr. Pallonji S. Mistry travelled abroad. Mr. pallonji s. Mistry is 80 years as on 31.3.2008 when Mrs. Patsy P. Mistry, Director of the accompanied him and considering the age of the Chairman of the assessee-company and also his medical necessity of health, his wife accompanied him during his tour abroad. Learned CIT(A) was of correct view that same was completely justified and warranted to accompany the Chairman hence the journey undertaken by Mr. Patsy Mistry cannot be said to be unjustified and not for business purposes when the chairman of the company was so warranted for the assessee’s business and operations. Learned CIT(A) disagreed with the Assessing Officer’s finding and deleted the addition made by Assessing Officer. - Decided in favour of assessee Disallowance of Employees’ Contribution to Provident Fund/ESIC - payments made after the due dates - Held that:- The assessee-company has paid the contribution to PF and ESIC after the due date but within the grace period. Learned CIT(A) was righ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h material evidence is produced by the assessee, the disallowance made by the A.O. was correct as held by the Hon'hle High Court of Calcutta in the case of Dhanuka Sons (339 ITR 319) (2011). 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT (A) erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 10,29,082 /- made by way of disallowance out of 'Foreign Travel Expenses pertaining to Mrs. Pasty P. Mistry, wife of Shri Pallonji S. Mistry. Chairman of assessee company, without appreciating the fact that the disallowance was made as expenditure incurred was purely personal in nature and was not incurred for the purpose of assessee's business 3(a) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 7,00.094/- made on account of disallowance of Employee's C on tr ibu ti on top r ovid en t Fund/ E S IC s inc e th e p ay men ts wer e mad e af te r t h e du e d ates holding that the payments have been made within grace period without appreciating the fact that in view of the decision of Hon'ble ITAT C' Bench Kolkata in the case of Bengal Chemical and Pharmaceuticals Ltd ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of ₹ 3,08,26,561/- to the total income of the assessee u/s. 14A of the Act. 4. Aggrieved, by the addition made by the Assessing Officer the assessee filed an appeal before learned CIT(A). Before learned CIT(A) assessee contended that the disallowances made in earlier year on account of 14A were deleted by learned CIT(A). Learned CIT(A) was of the opinion that the order passed by the Assessing Officer was not correct in applying Rule 8D read with section 14A without recording any reasons for disagreement of the disallowances worked out by the assessee-company related to exempt income of ₹ 1,07,91,985/-. It was warranted to give reasons if the Assessing Officer was not in agreement with the assessee s working of the said disallowance as it was done suo moto by the assessee-company. Learned CIT(A) find that the assessee-company has suo moto worked out the interest disallowance of borrowing which were subject matter of investment in shares which were generating exempt income and hence the working given by the assessee is done on the basis of Auditor s report of statutory auditor who carried out the work of audit. He finds that no qualifying has been made by the auditor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ears as on 31.3.2008 when Mrs. Patsy P. Mistry, Director of the accompanied him and considering the age of the Chairman of the assesseecompany and also his medical necessity of health, his wife accompanied him during his tour abroad. Learned CIT(A) was of the view that same was completely justified and warranted to accompany the Chairman hence the journey undertaken by Mr. Patsy Mistry cannot be said to be unjustified and not for business purposes when the chairman of the company was so warranted for the assessee s business and operations. Learned CIT(A) disagreed with the Assessing Officer s finding and deleted the addition made by Assessing Officer. 10. Aggrieved by the said deletion, the Revenue filed an appeal before the Tribunal. Learned Departmental Representative supported the order passed by the Assessing Officer whereas learned AR appearing on behalf of the assessee supported the order passed by learned CIT(A). 11. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record and considered the orders of the tax authorities. We are of the considered the view that the order passed by learned CIT(A) does not require any interference as the learned CIT(A) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
