Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2016 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (8) TMI 1286 - ITAT KOLKATADisallowance of commission - Held that:- The assessee has not been able to establish on evidence that the expenditure incurred on account of payment of commission in question is wholly and exclusively for the purpose of its business. Therefore, find no justification in the impugned order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) deleting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer on account of commission and setting aside the same on this issue, restore that of the Assessing Officer.- Decided against assessee Addition of payment of salary made by the assessee-firm to its partners - Held that:- Supplementary Partnership Deed filed by the assessee for the first time before the ld. CIT(Appeals) was relied upon by him to give relief to the assessee on this issue without giving any opportunity to the Assessing Officer to verify the same, which is in violation of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules. We therefore, set aside the impugned order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) on this issue and restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for deciding the same afresh after verifying the Supplementary Partnership Deed. Ground No. 2 is accordingly treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Disallowance of interest - Held that:- As evident from the relevant balance-sheet of the assessee, which have remained undisputed or uncontroverted by the ld. D.R., are sufficient to show that there was no diversion of borrowed funds by the assessee for non-business purpose and the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer on account of interest was unsustainable. In that view of the matter, we uphold the impugned order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) deleting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer on account of interest Disallowance of 20% out of the business promotion expenses - Held that:- As rightly observed by the ld. CIT(Appeals), no specific instance was pointed out by the Assessing Officer to show any unverifiable element involved in the expenses claimed by the assessee on business promotion and this position clearly evident from the order of the Assessing Officer is not disputed even by the ld. D.R. Therefore, find no infirmity in the impugned order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) deleting the ad hoc disallowance of 20% made out of business promotion expenses without pointing out any specific defect in the claim of the assessee Addition under section 14A read with Rule 8D - Held that:- Disallowance under section 14A cannot be made where there is no exempt income earned by the assessee during the relevant year and this position is duly supported by the various judicial pronouncements, thus no infirmity in the impugned order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) giving relief to the assessee on this issue
|