Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2014 (3) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2014 (3) TMI 722 - AT - Income Tax


Issues involved:

1. Disallowance of the entire expenditure claimed by the assessee.
2. Treatment of the entire receipts as income.
3. Examination of the genuineness of the business activities carried out by the assessee.
4. Allowance of specific expenditures, including dealer meet expenses and interest payments.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Disallowance of the entire expenditure claimed by the assessee:

The assessee firm filed its return of income for A.Y. 1997-98, admitting an income of Rs.82,330/-. The A.O. disallowed the entire expenditure claimed by the assessee, holding that it was neither proved nor genuine. The CIT(A) and ITAT upheld this disallowance, with the ITAT noting inconsistencies in the agreement and the lack of evidence to support the claimed expenditures. The A.O. observed that the firm's agreement with Unique Plastics Ltd. was entered before the firm's formation and was amended twice before it started operations. The A.O. also noted that the commission was reduced without a basis, suggesting the diversion of funds. The ITAT concluded that 30% of the various expenditures (other than interest and dealer meet expenses) could be justified and directed the A.O. to disallow 30% of the claimed expenditures.

2. Treatment of the entire receipts as income:

The A.O. treated the entire receipts of Rs.40,20,000/- from Unique Plastics Ltd. as income, disallowing the entire expenditure claimed by the assessee. The ITAT accepted the receipt of Rs.40,20,000/- as commission, noting that there was no dispute regarding this amount. The ITAT focused on examining the various claims of expenditure rather than the genuineness of the business activity, which was relevant for the allowance of expenditure in the company's hands.

3. Examination of the genuineness of the business activities carried out by the assessee:

The A.O. and CIT(A) questioned the genuineness of the business activities carried out by the assessee, noting inconsistencies in the agreement and the lack of evidence to support the claimed expenditures. The ITAT observed that the firm's agreement with Unique Plastics Ltd. was entered before the firm's formation and was amended twice before it started operations. The ITAT also noted that the business was done only for one year at the unilateral directions of the company, indicating that the claim of business activity required thorough examination. However, the ITAT accepted the receipt of Rs.40,20,000/- as commission and focused on examining the various claims of expenditure.

4. Allowance of specific expenditures, including dealer meet expenses and interest payments:

The ITAT addressed the allowance of specific expenditures, including dealer meet expenses and interest payments. The ITAT disallowed the entire amount of Rs.4,17,069/- claimed as dealer meet expenses, noting inconsistencies in the bills and the fact that the expenditure was borne by the assessee at the instance of the company. The ITAT allowed the interest paid to Dhanalakshmi Bank in full but noted that the amount paid to partners would get taxed separately in their hands. The ITAT directed the A.O. to disallow 30% of the various expenditures claimed (other than interest and dealer meet expenses) to meet the ends of justice.

Conclusion:

The ITAT partly allowed the appeal of the assessee, directing the A.O. to disallow 30% of the various expenditures claimed (other than interest and dealer meet expenses) and disallowing the entire amount of Rs.4,17,069/- claimed as dealer meet expenses. The ITAT accepted the receipt of Rs.40,20,000/- as commission but noted that the claim of business activity required thorough examination. The ITAT's order should not be taken as a basis for considering the allowance of expenditure in the hands of the company, which is pending adjudication.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates