Tax Management India. Com
                        Law and Practice: A Digital eBook ...

Category of Documents

TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Case Laws Acts Notifications Circulars Classification Forms Manuals SMS News Articles
Highlights
D. Forum
What's New

Share:      

        Home        
 

TMI Blog

Home List
← Previous Next →

2018 (4) TMI 697

khs + ₹ 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. - Decided against revenue - Disallowance of expenses u/s 14A read with Rule 8D - Held that:- assessee has not received any dividend income during the year could not be controverted by the Revenue. Therefore, we find no infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) deleting the disallowance u/s 14A r.w. rule 8D on the 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. .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

nst the order dated 30.07.2015 of the CIT(A)- 6, Delhi relating to assessment year 2011-12. For the sake of convenience, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Ground no.1 by the Revenue reads as under :- 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 1,90,000/- made by the Assessing Officers on account of disallowance of loan processing charges as claimed by the assessee? 3. After hearing both the sides, we find the Assessing Officer disallowed an amount of ₹ 1,90,000/- claimed by the assessee under the head loan processing charges on the ground that these expenses are related to prior period and, therefore, cannot be allowed. We find in appeal the ld. CIT(A) allowed the deduction claimed by the 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 co .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

gs which is given on lease. According to the Assessing Officer, these expenses are covered by deduction u/s 24(a) and, therefore, cannot be allowed as expense. Further, the assessee company has paid salary of ₹ 45,500/- to persons employed as Maali at Farm House. He observed that the assessee company does not own any Farm House. He, therefore, disallowed the claim of Maali expenses at ₹ 45,500/-. Thus, he disallowed an amount of ₹ 1,58,231/- i.e. ₹ 1,12,731/- + ₹ 45,500/-. 8. In appeal, the ld. CIT(A) allowed the claim of the assessee on the ground that the amount was incurred for the premises no.2 Ajmol Khan Road, Karolbagh which is new premises occupied by the assessee as the business has shifted from Connaught Place to Karolbagh. He accepted the plea of the assessee 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

a at the rate of 25,000/- each per month is concerned, he sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer on the ground that 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 ₹ .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

al. 20. After hearing both the sides, we find the ld. CIT(A) sustained the disallowance made by the Assessing 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. .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

 

 

← Previous Next →

 

 

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || Database || Members || Refer Us ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.
|| Blog || Site Map - Recent || Site Map ||