9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (4) TMI 793X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spectfully following the aforementioned decision we hold that if the aforementioned expenditure were subjected to FBT, then disallowance cannot be made. However, to verify that whether or not these expenditure were subjected to FBT, we restore the issues raised in these appeals to the file of AO with a direction to verify the contention of the assessee that whether or not impugned expenditure were subjected to FBT. If those expenditure were subjected to FBT then no disallowance can be made and the claim of the assessee should be accepted in its entirety. - ITA No. 2310 & 2311/MUM/2012 - - - Dated:- 25-4-2013 - SHRI I.P. BANSAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER /AND SHRI D.KARUNAKAR RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For the Appellant by: Shri S.L.Jain For ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1. Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding disallowance of ₹ 155438/- being 10% of expenses incurred under the head telephone and postage without properly appreciating the facts of the case that such expenses included cost of postage, courier charges, cost of telephones installed at office and residential premises of the staff and mobile telephones and all expenses are incurred for the purpose of business. 2. Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding disallowance out of foreign traveling expenses of ₹ 13,35,506 - merely on the ground that expenses have been incurred on foreign traveling of the lady partner without appreciating the fact that expenses have been incurred in day-to-day business of the appellant as in earlier years and hence n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... challenged in an appeal filed before Ld. CIT(A). Similar arguments were raised that these disallowance was covered by FBT provisions however, Ld. CIT(A) has rejected such contention. 4. So far as it relates to Ground No.2, in A.Y 2006-07 the AO noticed that the assessee had incurred telephone and postal charges aggregating to ₹ 15,54,382/-. The AO disallowed 1/5th thereof at ₹ 3,10,876/-. For A.Y 2007-08 adopting similar approach a sum of ₹ 2,89,124/- is disallowed. Ld. CIT(A) has reduced the same to 5%. 5. At the outset, it is the submission of Ld. A.R that both the expenses i.e. expenses on traveling and telephone etc. were subjected to FBT provisions. He submitted that though Ld. CIT(A) has not accepted such propo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
