9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 618X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sideration while adjudication the said appeal. 1. That the Learned CIT (A) has grossly erred both on facts and law in passing the impugned order without providing the sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee thus passing the order violating the principles of natural justice. 2. That the notice dated 31/12/2015 alleged to be served on the assessee, fixing the dated of hearing for 15/02/2016, was in fact never served upon the assessee. 3. That the Learned CIT (A) has grossly erred both on facts and law in the impugned order that none had appeared on 30/11/2015 whereas in fact it was informed by the office of the Learned CIT (A) about the non availability of the CIT (A) on 30/11/2015. 4. The assessee through its counsel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... business development purposes. The Learned Assessing Officer has totally ignored the facts and circumstances of the Appellant Company in making the alleged addition of Rs. 51,000/- . This fact has not been examined by the Ld. CIT(A) and has provided no opportunity to assessee company to explain the same. 8. That the learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the addition made by the Learned Assessing Officer has grossly erred in adhoc disallowing expenditure of Rs. 1,24,003/- (i.e., 10% of the telephone expenses and vehicle running and maintenance expenses) considering them as personal expenses without any material evidence or basis. The Learned Assessing Officer has failed to recognize the fact that Assessee is an artificial judici ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the company, the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 80G of the Income Tax .Act, 1961. This fact has not been examined by the Ld. CIT(A) and has provided no opportunity to assessee company to explain the same. 12. That the Learned CIT(A) has grossly erred on not adjudicating that the Assessing Officer has grossly erred in initiating penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for revising return of income by the assessee to withdraw the depreciation claimed on rented premises after receipt of scrutiny notice without appreciating the fact that no penalty can be imposed as return of income being revised by the assessee suo moto before any query/ questionnaire was raised in this regard by the Learned Assessing Offic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ieved with the aforesaid assessment order, assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned order dated 18.2.2016 has dismissed the appeal of the assessee by affirming the action of the AO. 5. Against the aforesaid order of the Ld. CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. At the time of hearing, ld. Counsel of the assessee has not pressed the ground no. 1 to 4 hence, the ground no. 1 to 4 stand dismissed as not pressed. 6.1 With regard to ground no. 5 & 6 are concerned, these are relating to allowing the lower rate of depreciation on CCTV cameras of Rs. 93,431/- @ 15%. On this issue Ld. Counsel of the assessee has stated CCTV Camera can only run when it is connected with computer, as computer is an integral ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... advertisement and sales promotion and brand building are allowable expenses. 6.2.1 On the other hand, Ld. DR relied upon the orders of authorities below on the issue in dispute. 6.2.2 I have both the parties and perused the records, I find that the said expenditure was genuine one as the same was paid to Lion Club for advertisement in District Directory for good and effective medium for company's products and services, as is evident from the receipt filed at pages 165 of the paper book and delete the addition in dispute by relying on the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Salora International Limited reported in 308 ITR 199 wherein it has been held that expenses incurred for advertisement and sales pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s in dispute are deleted. To support this contention, I draw support from the judgment of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the cases of Sayaji Iron & Engg. & Co. vs CIT (Gujarat HC) reported in 253 ITR 749. 6.4 With regard to ground no. 10 & 11 relating to disallowing the donation of Rs. 20,000/- and not allowing the deduction under section 80G are concerned. Ld. Counsel of the assessee stated that Rs. 20,000/- had been made for the purpose of advertisement of the company. Hence, incurred exclusively for the business purpose. He stated that a bare perusal of page 166 of the paper book would make it evidently clear that, the said expenditure was paid to for advertisement for promotion of company's products and services and stated that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
