9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (9) TMI 509X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... scuss technical methods with colleagues working in sister concern on product development and marketing is business expenditure. (ii) the expenses on account of use of car were not personal but for business purpose. The Tribunal followed its orders for the earlier assessment years in the case of the assessee. The appeal against that order was dismissed by this court. (iii) That the Tribunal had held the commission paid to the managing director and executives was permissible deduction as was held by the Tribunal for the earlier years in the case of the assessee. The appeal against that order was dismissed by this court. (iv) that with regard to disallowance of Rs. 70,000 made by the assessing Officer out of legal and professional charges, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs. 2,84,072 made by the Assessing Officer on account of commission paid to the managing director and the executives, was deleted? (iv) Whether the hon'ble Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in law in confirming the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in which the disallowance of Rs. 70,000 made by the Assessing Officer out of legal and professional charges, was deleted?" 2. During the course of assessment year in question, the Assessing Officer disallowed foreign tour expenses on the ground that there was no evidence of nexus of the said expenses with the business. The Assessing Officer further disallowed expenses attributable to personal use of car, commission paid to the managing director and executives and payment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es was permissible deduction as was held by the Tribunal for the earlier years in the case of the assessee. The said view was affirmed by this court in I. T. A. No. 540 of 2006 (CIT v. Porrits and Spencer (Asia) Ltd.) decided on March 5, 2009. 6. With regard to question (iv), it was held that the expenses were incurred for business purposes. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the assessee and perused the record. 8. It is clear from the above that questions (ii) and (iii) are covered by earlier orders of this court against the Revenue while questions (i) and (iv) relate to questions of fact. In view of finding recorded by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) as affirmed by the Tribunal, which cannot be held to be perverse, no sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
