9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (11) TMI 392 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance of business expenses - as per AO no business income derived by the assessee and the assessee has not carried out any business activity during the year under consideration for it to be eligible to claim business expenditure - Held that - From the details of expenditure so incurred and claimed, we find that the assessee has merely claimed the expenses which are necessary to retain the establishment. Other expenses have been suo motu added by the assessee while computing taxable income. From the P&L account we notice that the loss works out to be ₹ 1,86,69,943/- however, the assessee has claimed loss of ₹ 70,53440/- in its return of income. It means the assessee himself has disallowed the loss of ₹ 1,16,15,803/-. So, we do not find any infirmity in CIT(A) order in allowing legitimate claim of business expenditure incurred by the assessee. - Decided in favour of assessee
Issues:
- Disallowance of expenditure claimed as business expenses - Applicability of section 44AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 Analysis: 1. The appeal was filed by the revenue against the order passed by the Ld. CIT(Appeals)-1, Mumbai, for the Asst. year 2006-07, where the CIT(A) allowed the appeal by the assessee against the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The assessee declared a total income of (-) ?70,53,440/- for the A.Y. 2006-07. The case was selected for scrutiny, and it was found that the assessee had claimed various incomes and expenses. The AO allowed only ?1 lakh out of the claimed expenses of ?2,01,01,623/- to maintain the company's status. 3. The CIT(A) set aside the assessment order, allowing the entire amount claimed by the assessee as expenses, stating that the business was not discontinued but had temporarily suspended manufacturing activities. The revenue appealed to the Tribunal on the grounds of disallowance of expenditure and the alleged discontinuation of business. 4. The AR argued that the expenses were rightly allowed by the CIT(A) and cited various court decisions supporting the claim that expenses incurred to keep the business alive are considered for the purpose of the business. The AR also contended that section 44AB was not applicable due to the gross turnover being below the prescribed limit. 5. The DR contended that since no business activity was conducted during the assessment year, the expenses claimed should not be allowed. The AO had allowed only ?1 lakh as an expense, considering the lack of business activity and unaudited claims. 6. The Tribunal deliberated on whether the assessee was entitled to claim the business expenses. The CIT(A) had allowed the expenses, emphasizing that the business was operational during the year, and the expenses were for business purposes. The Tribunal found no fault in the CIT(A)'s decision. 7. The CIT(A) noted that the AO did not provide any specific findings to disallow the expenses, and the books were audited without defects. The Tribunal found that the claimed expenses were necessary to maintain the establishment, and the assessee had already disallowed a portion of the loss. 8. Referring to legal precedents, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision based on the principles laid down by various High Courts and the Supreme Court. It concluded that the expenses were legitimately claimed for the purpose of the business. 9. Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal for the A.Y. 2006-07, upholding the CIT(A)'s order based on the evidence and established legal principles. This detailed analysis covers the issues of disallowance of expenses and the applicability of section 44AB in the context of the legal judgment delivered by the Tribunal.
|
