9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 610X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to deny the claim made by the assessee. Hence, the expenses incurred towards foreign travel of the wife of the partner along with other persons should be treated as expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business. - Decided in favour of assessee. - Tax Case (Appeal) Nos.1019 and 1020 of 2014 & M.P.No.1 of 2014 - - - Dated:- 5-1-2015 - MR.R.SUDHAKAR AND MR. R. KARUPPIAH, JJ. For The Appellant : Mr.J.Narayanasamy Standing counsel for Income Tax COMMON JUDGMENT (Delivered by R.SUDHAKAR,J.) The above Tax Case (Appeals) are filed by the Revenue as against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal raising the following substantial question of law: T.C.(A)No.1019 of 2014: Whether on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... others. 3. Aggrieved by the said order of assessment, the assessee preferred appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) found that during the financial year 2004-05, the assessee incurred foreign travel expenses and the Tax Audit Report revealed that the expenses are personal in nature. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) further found that the assessee's wife is neither a partner nor an employee of the assessee firm. Therefore, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) held that the assessee failed to establish the business connection with the travelling expenses of the wife of the partner. Accordingly, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dismissed the appeals holding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Income Tax (Appeals) submits that the assessee has not established the business connection with the travelling expenses of the wife of the partner. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the decision of this Court reported in (2003) 261 ITR 193 ( D.B.Madan V. Commissioner of Income Tax), wherein it was held that if the object of the foreign tour by the assessee s wife was to attend on the assessee and for his personal comforts, the expenditure would not qualify for deduction though the result of such expenditure may increase the efficiency of the assessee in attending to his business. He further submits that the wife of the assessee herein was not associated with the firm of the assessee and she was not the partner of the fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
