9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 491X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of 2,78,851/- on account of advertisement, business promotion, telephone 8,000/- over and above the subsisting rent agreement which was stated to be an old agreement. In our considered view, this enhanced rent of 8,000/- is not allowable in the absence of rent agreement or some other evidence satisfactory explanation to corroborate and substantiate the increased rent. The assessee did not submit any details, explanation or evidence to substantiate its contentions about increased rent and this enhanced rent of 8,000/- cannot be allowed as deduction while computing income of the assessee keeping in view facts and circumstances of the case, as the assessee is not able to discharge the onus cast on the assessee, and the addition made by the A.O. as confirmed by the Id. CIT(A) is hereby upheld/confirmed, as we do not find any infirmity in the order of learned CIT(Al which we affirm. - Decided against assessee Addition on sundry deposits in the Balance Sheet - Held that:- Since the assessee could not produce any evidence/ satisfactory explanations to explain these deposits appearing in its Balance Sheet, in our considered view, the decision of the Id. CIT(A) is quite justified and we up ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rse of hearing, the assessee was asked by the AO to explain that why fees received from Kaapi Machines (India) P. Ltd. of ₹ 11,7981- be not added to the income of the assessee, but no explanation was offered by the assessee. The A.O. accordingly added the same to the income of the assessee vide assessment order dated 13.12.2011 passed u/s 143(3) or the Act. On appeal being filed by the assessee with the learned CIT(A), the Id. CIT(A) confirmed the additions as no evidence was submitted during the appellate proceedings before learned CIT(A) also, vide appellate order dated 30-01-2014 passed by learned CIT(A). Aggrieved by the appellate order dated 30-01-2014 passed by the Id. CIT(A) , the assessee filed second appeal before the Tribunal. Before the Tribunal also neither any satisfactory explanation nor any evidence could be offered by the assessee. The only submission was made by the learned counsel for the assessee that there was dispute with the party and the bill was cancelled. The Id. D.R. on the other hand relied on the orders of authorities below. We have considered the rival contentions and also perused the 'material available on record. We have observed that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8,851/- towards advertisement, business promotion, telephone & mobile expenses, conveyance and miscellaneous expenses while no deficiency was pointed out by the authorities below in the bills/vouchers submitted. The Id. D.R. on the other hand relied upon the orders of authorities below. We have considered the rival contentions and also perused the material available on record. We have observed that the assessee has incurred total expenses of ₹ 2,78,851/- on account of advertisement, business promotion, telephone & mobile expenses, conveyance and miscellaneous expenses. The assessee could not produce proper and satisfactory evidence/explanations before the authorities below to prove that the expenses were incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business. Ad-hoc addition has been made @ 25% of the total expenditure by the authorities below on the ground that personal usage cannot be ruled out. However, no deficiency has been pointed out by the A.O. which is specific to any bill/voucher submitted by the assessee, but keeping in view satisfactory details about expenditure being incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business was not submitted by the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as per new rent agreed by the assessee with landlord, and there is excess payment of ₹ 8000/- towards rent. The payment was made through banking channel through account payee cheques. It was submitted by learned counsel for the assessee that no new agreement has been entered into with the landlord for revised rent. The Id. D.R. on the other hand relied on the orders of the authorities below and submitted that payment of ₹ 8000/- is not a genuine business expenditure and the A.O. has rightly disallowed the same. We have considered the rival contentions and also perused the material available on record. We have observed that the assessee has entered into rent agreement with the landlord which is an old agreement and no revised agreement is entered into by the assessee with the landlord for increased rent, and the assessee is contending that the rent has been revised upward but there is no written rent agreement entered into with the landlord for increased rent. The assesee is contending that the assessee has paid excess payment of ₹ 8000 j - towards increased rent vide banking channel through account payee cheque although new rent agreement does not exists as the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
