9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 1068X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he view that the disallowance to the extent of 50% towards the salary commission and staff welfare expenses is on higher side and the end of the justice would be meet if the disallowance be restricted to the extent of 25% on account of salary to the tune of ₹ 4,06,801/- and commission to the tune of ₹ 2,83,700/- and staff welfare allowance to the tune of ₹ 75,419/- - Decided against revenue Disallowance to the extent of 50% of sale promotion expenses - Held that:- Assessee furnished the reasonable details of these expenses in the form of copies of voucher and ledger account etc. Therefore, in the said circumstances, we are of the view that the disallowance to the extent of 50% towards the sale promotion expenses to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ised the following grounds:- 1. The Ld. Income Tax Officer has erred in law and in facts by disallowing salary of ₹ 4,06,801/- and the Ld. CIT(Appeals)-36 by disallowing the same by 50% i.e. ₹ 203400/- but the salary was fully allowed by the first ITO while passing the order for the first time. The salary should be fully allowed as done in the first order. 2. The Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in law and in facts by disallowing commission fully and the CIT(Appeals)-36 by disallowing 50% of the same. It should be fully allowed as full details were provided to the ITO and the CIT(A)-36. The disallowance is without any base and arbitrarily disallowed. 3. The Ld. Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A)-36 have err ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s in levying interest u/s.234B and 234C of the Act. 3. The facts of the case are that the appellant is a HUF and filed its return of income for A.Y 2004-05 on 30.10.2004 declaring total income to the tune of 1,19,370/-. The original assessment was completed vide order dt. 30.11.2006 u/s 143(3) determining its total income to the tune of ₹ 18,17,430/-. The appellant carried the matter up to the Tribunal and vide order dt. 12.3.2010 the Tribunal restored the matter before the Assessing Officer for afresh assessment. Subsequently, the assessment proceedings was completed determining the total income to the tune of ₹ 14,34,870/-. The Assessing Officer made the following additions / disallowances:- i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hidanand Godimani. Assessing Officer observed that the salary as well as the commission were given to the same person. Therefore, notices u/s.133(6) of the Act were issued to the person whom the commission was paid which were not served upon Mr. Mayur Acharya, Mr. Nathuram Kendre, Mr. Batta Behera and Mr. Lambodar Mishra. However, Mr. Anant Panda and Mr. Chidanand Godimani did not respond to the notice. Accordingly, on account of non appearance, the staff welfare allowance remained unexplained therefore the Assessing Officer disallowed the salary to the tune of ₹ 4,06,801/- and commission to the tune of ₹ 2,83,700/- and staff welfare allowance to the tune of ₹ 75,419/- and added in the income of the assessee. Subsequently, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d of the justice would be meet if the disallowance be restricted to the extent of 25% on account of salary to the tune of ₹ 4,06,801/- and commission to the tune of ₹ 2,83,700/- and staff welfare allowance to the tune of ₹ 75,419/- . We ordered accordingly. Accordingly, these issues have been decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. ISSUE NO.4:- 5. Under this issue the assessee has challenged the confirmation of disallowance to the extent of 50% of sale promotion expenses to the tune of ₹ 3,15,890/-. Assessing Officer observed that this expenditure was incurred on event such as picnic, hotel etc. Assessee did not furnish the name who were taken at picnic and hotel. Assessee did not establ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ravelling expenses to the tune of ₹ 88,344/-, telephone expenses of ₹ 23,660, conveyance expenses of ₹ 10,850, office expenses of ₹ 19,770/- and disallowing expenses of HMV Enterprises of ₹ 92,434/-. The Assessing Officer disallowed the said expenses being not supported by bills and vouchers. The travelling is in-evadible expenditure and on the issue of disallowance of telephone, conveyance and office expenses etc. There are proper entries in the ledger account books and the details have been mentioned in the vouchers. Moreover the assessee was asked to produce the documents after the lapse of seven years then in the said circumstances the vouchers and bills are not possibly produced by the assessee, therefore, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
