2012 (1) TMI 82 - HC - Income Tax

Business expenditure - dis-allowance of travelling expenses, lease hold expenses, investment allowance, part of foreign travelling expenses Held that - Since assessee has not pressed before Tribunal the matter of dis-allowance of travelling expenses, lease hold expenses and investment allowance hence, this question does not arise for adjudication in the present appeal. Further, Tribunal has not found any good ground to interfere in such part dis-allowance of foreign travelling expenses and appellant could not persuade us to take a contrary view. Therefore, appeal is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance of travelling expenses
2. Disallowance of leasehold expenses
3. Disallowance of investment allowance
4. Disallowance of foreign travelling expenses

Analysis:
1. The first issue raised in the appeal was regarding the disallowance of travelling expenses. The High Court observed that the appellant did not press this issue before the Tribunal, hence it was not considered for adjudication. The Court concluded that this question does not arise for consideration in the present appeal. The appellant's contention on this matter was not pursued, leading to the dismissal of this issue.

2. Moving on to the second issue concerning the disallowance of leasehold expenses claimed as legitimate business expenditure, the Court noted that similar to the first issue, this matter was also not pressed by the appellant before the Tribunal. Therefore, the Court held that this question does not warrant consideration in the appeal. The appellant's failure to pursue this issue resulted in its dismissal by the Court.

3. The third issue pertained to the disallowance of investment allowance. The Court highlighted that the assessing officer had disallowed a portion of the investment allowance claimed by the appellant, which was upheld by the CIT (Appeals) and the Tribunal. The Court noted that there was no valid reason presented to challenge this disallowance. The Court, after considering the arguments, upheld the decision of the lower authorities on this issue, leading to the dismissal of the appellant's claim.

4. Lastly, the fourth issue revolved around the disallowance of foreign travelling expenses. The Court noted that the assessing officer had only disallowed 10% of the foreign travelling allowance claimed by the appellant, a decision that was upheld by the CIT (Appeals) and the Tribunal. The Court found no compelling reason to overturn this decision. Despite the appellant's efforts, the Court was not persuaded to take a different stance. Consequently, the Court held that the appeal lacked merit and proceeded to dismiss it.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as the issues raised by the appellant regarding various expense disallowances were not pursued effectively and failed to provide sufficient grounds for the Court to intervene in the decisions of the lower authorities.