9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (5) TMI 282X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was that, she does not posses technical qualification. The expenditure of Shri Kirti J. Sheth was allowed, who was technocrat. 4. The assessee claimed Rs. 3,19,077 as travelling expenses. The expenditure was incurred for foreign trips made by Shri Kirit J. Sheth, director of the assessee-company to Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan and USA. The expenses incurred for USA trip was by Shri Kirit J. Sheth and Smt. Nalini K. Sheth. The Assessing Officer noticed, the evidences produced before him did not indicate any business purpose behind the visit as no evidence of any business meeting, discussions etc. with any parties. The Assessing Officer also held, Smt. Nalini K. Sheth joining her husband s trip to USA, cannot be justified as she is not q ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earned Departmental Representative supported the order of the revenue authorities. 7. Considering the facts, I am of the view that the appeal by the assessee on this ground is to be allowed. It is true; she had visited USA with her husband. It is not denied that she is having administrate experience and looking after the administrative matters merely because she is not technocrat. The explanation cannot be disallowed. The word wholly and exclusively used in section does not mean that, if two directors visit abroad and they happen to be close relatives or husband and wife one person expenses does not fall within the scope of "wholly and exclusively used in the section, if it is taken to such a strict interpretation then it can be stated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ." The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of the assessee. Aggrieved by the above order, assessee carried the matter before the CIT(A). 10. CIT(A) concurred with the finding of the Assessing Officer. While confirming the Assessing Officer order, the CIT(A) noted that, assessee could not produced any details of steps taken or correspondence to show that the debts are non-recoverable. The CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance. Aggrieved by the above order, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 11. Hearing the rival submissions, I am of the view that the issue now stands squarely covered by the decision of the Tribunal, Special Bench H , Mumbai, in the case of DCIT v. Oman International Bank SAOG, wherein the Tribunal, held, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
