9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Disallowance under u/s 40(a)(ia) for labour charges and club expenses for assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07.
Assessment Year 2005-06: The appellant contested the disallowance of &8377; 67,86,866 u/s 40(a)(ia) for labour charges. The appellant argued that recent Tribunal decisions support the deductibility of direct expenses like labour charges u/s 28(i) and not u/s 30 to 38. The Tribunal remitted the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on this plea, as it had not been examined before. The first ground of appeal was allowed for statistical purposes. The appellant also challenged the disallowance of &8377; 12,00,000 for club expenses. The Assessing Officer rejected the claim due to lack of business advantage and club functionality. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the lower authorities' findings but remitted the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on the admissibility of the deduction based on business expediency. The second ground of appeal was allowed for statistical purposes. Assessment Year 2006-07: The appellant contested the disallowance of &8377; 3,05,000 for club expenses, which was based on the CIT(A)'s order for the previous year. The Tribunal remitted this grievance to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in line with the observations made for the earlier assessment year. Ground no. 1 was allowed for statistical purposes. The appellant did not make specific submissions for grounds 3 and 4, leading to their dismissal as not pressed. Ground no. 5, being general, was dismissed as well. The appeal for the assessment year 2006-07 was partly allowed for statistical purposes. In conclusion, both appeals were partly allowed for statistical purposes, with the matters related to disallowance under u/s 40(a)(ia) and club expenses being remitted for fresh adjudication by the CIT(A).
|
