TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 697X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he ground that the assessee has not earned any exempt income during the year. - Decided against revenue Addition on account of repairs and maintenance u/s 37 - Held that:- We find the assessee has shown rent receipt of ₹ 2,12,50,000/-. Therefore, it is not coming out clearly from the order of the ld. CIT(A) as to how he arrived at the conclusion that the repair and maintenance expenses related to the new premises at Ajmol Khan Road, Karolbagh. Since the factual details are not coming out clearly, therefore, considering the totality of the facts of the case, we deem it proper to restore this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to adjudicate this issue afresh. Disallowance made by the Assessing Officer u/s 40A(2)(b) under the head salary - Held that:- No infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) as he has given justifiable reasons while deleting or sustaining the disallowance u/s 40A(2)(b) made by the Assessing Officer. He has considered the qualification of the concerned persons and the nature of job/responsibility of each of the persons and accordingly he has come to a conclusion that the salary paid to Aradhana Mehra, Roshni Mehra and Pawan Mehr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee on the ground that the assessee availed loan of ₹ 75 lakhs + ₹ 55 lakhs + ₹ 60 lakhs totaling to ₹ 1.9 lakhs from Corporation Bank for which the bank charged 1% of the loan towards loan processing charges and these amounts were charged on 28.04.2010, 18.09.2010 and on 16.03.2010 and all three dates fall within the year under consideration and the loan was also in the nature of cash credit. He accordingly allowed the claim of deduction. We find no infirmity in the same especially when assessee has availed cash credit from the bank and bank charged processing charges during the impugned assessment year. Therefore, the order of the ld. CIT(A) does not call for any inference and accordingly the same is upheld. The ground no.1 raised by the Revenue is accordingly dismissed. 4. Ground no.2 by the Revenue reads as under :- 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 62,21,309/- made by the AO by making a disallowance of expenses u/s 14A of the I.T. Act, 1961 read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 being related to the exempt income? 5. After hearing bot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee that no rent was paid for this premises and to make it suitable for the business these repairs were undertaken. The Maali expenses were also for the said premises. 9. Aggrieved with such order of the ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 10. After hearing both the sides, we find the assessee has shown rent receipt of ₹ 2,12,50,000/-. Therefore, it is not coming out clearly from the order of the ld. CIT(A) as to how he arrived at the conclusion that the repair and maintenance expenses related to the new premises at Ajmol Khan Road, Karolbagh. Since the factual details are not coming out clearly, therefore, considering the totality of the facts of the case, we deem it proper to restore this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to adjudicate this issue afresh after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We hold and direct accordingly. This ground raised by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes. 11. Ground no.4 by the Revenue and Ground no.2 by the assessee relate to the partial relief given by the ld. CIT(A) on account of disallowance made by the Assessing Officer u/s 40A(2)(b) under the head sal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the turnover during the year has come down heavily from ₹ 3.5 crores to ₹ 0.46 crores and the assessee failed to substantiate with evidence, the services if at all rendered by them or their justifiability. So far as salary paid to Pawan Mehra is concerned, i.e. at the rate of 25,000/- per month, he allowed the claim of the assessee on the ground that he is entrusted with the jobs which involved collection of rent cheques, deposits of cheques with the bank, following up on service tax, supervising the office personnel looking after the company s machinery including the period maintenance etc and various other responsibilities as entrusted to him in page 9 of his order. So far as salary paid to Sakshi Mehra at the rate of 25,000/- per month, he sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the assessee could not substantiate the nature of work conducted by her. Thus, out of ₹ 20,40,000/- disallowed by the Assessing Officer, the ld. CIT(A) sustained the amount of ₹ 9,00,000/- and deleted the amount of ₹ 11,40,000/-. 15. Aggrieved with such order of the ld. CIT(A), the Revenue as well as the assessee are in appeal before the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng Officer on the ground that the assessee failed to prove that C.L. Mehra owns the trademark Mehrasons and C.L. Mehra is not at all the owner of the trademark Mehrasons and the amount advanced to C.L. Mehra cannot be treated as prudent and expedient for the business purposes. Similarly, in the case of Chand Mehra, he observed that the assessee failed to prove with evidence that any service has been rendered at all by Chand Mehra to the assessee. However, in the case of advance given to Mehra Sons Jewelers Pvt. Ltd. of ₹ 23,50,000/-, Namita Mehra of ₹ 6,94,914/- and Sakshi Mehra of ₹ 2,57,779/- these were allowed by him on the ground that these advances are for business purposes. So far as advance of ₹ 11,71,865/- to Vinay Mehra is concerned, he gave a finding that the assessee failed to prove with evidence as to whether any service at all has been rendered by Mr. Vinay Mehra and, therefore, he held that these advances are nothing but diversifying of business fund for which he upheld the disallowance of interest. 21. Aggrieved with such order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee as well as the Revenue are in appeal before the Tribunal. 22. We have heard ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
