9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 411X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is necessary for its business and it is not for the Assessing officer to disallow the expenses which the assessee feels is necessary for its business. In the present facts, the case of the assessee before the Tribunal is that those expenses are necessary to meet the foreign buyers. In this view of the matter, the view taken by the Authorities under the Act to restrict the expenses of travel only to Singapore visit where the foreign buyer of the appellant is situated, cannot be said to be perverse. It is a possible view. The fact that the assessee's expenses on travel have been allowed for subsequent years or have been set aside by the Tribunal in the earlier Assessment Years or subsequent Assessment Years, would not by itself govern the is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Y. P. Trivedi, Sr Adv with Mr.Vipul Joshi and Ms.Usha Dalal For the Respondent : Mr. Arvind Pinto ORDER P. C. 1. Heard. This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act,1961 (the Act), challenges the order dated 8 May 2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal). The Assessment Year involved is Assessment Year 2003-04. 2. The appellant-assessee urges the following questions of law for our consideration: (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in confirming the the disallowance of 'Export Promotion Expenses' being the foreign travelling expenses incurred by the President, Director and the Executive Director on the ground th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the President and Directors of the Company had not only travelled to Singapore where the A.E. (QCS) is situated but also to other countries. The travel to Singapore was held to be for the purpose of business and the expenses of ₹ 5 lakhs incurred on visit to Singapore was allowed as business expenditure while the balance amount of ₹ 80.95 lakhs was disallowed by Assessment Order dated 22 March 2006. (c) On appeal, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)) concurred with the view of the Assessing Officer held that the Assessee had responsibility of only to supply and sell its SMPS to its sole customer i.e. A.E. (QCS). Thus by order dated 19 July 2011 the CIT(A) upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. (d) Bei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellant that the aforesaid expenses were wholly and exclusively incurred for the purpose of business of the appellant-assessee and, therefore, ought to be allowed. It was further submitted that the method and manner of doing its business cannot be dictated upon by the Revenue. Therefore, the expenses which are commercially expedient in the view of the assessee ought to be allowed under Section 37(1) of the Act. In support reliance is placed upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case Sassoon J.David and Co.P.Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay, (118 ITR 263(SC)) and the decision of this court in the case Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sales Magnesite (Pvt.) Ltd., (214 ITR 1 (Bom.)) . It is also further pointed out by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uated at Singapore. No one cannot dispute the proposition that it is for the assessee concerned to decide as to what expenses is necessary for its business and it is not for the Assessing officer to disallow the expenses which the assessee feels is necessary for its business. In the present facts, the case of the assessee before the Tribunal is that those expenses are necessary to meet the foreign buyers. In this view of the matter, the view taken by the Authorities under the Act to restrict the expenses of travel only to Singapore visit where the foreign buyer of the appellant is situated, cannot be said to be perverse. It is a possible view. The fact that the assessee's expenses on travel have been allowed for subsequent years or have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... parables being relied upon by the appellant-assessee to determine ALP of the appellant's product and by order dated 19 July 2011 arrived at a margin of 5.42 %. 7. Being aggrieved, the Revenue carried the order dated 19 July 2011 of CIT(A) in appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal by the impugned order accepted the Revenue's contention that merely because the comparables have been accepted for the subsequent assessment year would not ipso facto lead to same comparables being applied to the subject assessment year. On merits, the Tribunal by the impugned order rejected all the three comparables. The first comparable was rejected on the ground that it is a loss making unit, second comparable was rejected on the ground that it had extr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
