9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 116X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rity while completing the assessment and it is also the fact that ledger account of travelling expenditure was placed on record. We, therefore, in view of above facts, are of the view that it will meet the ends of justice if the disallowance is restricted to 15% of the Directors’ travelling expenses of ₹ 3,74,069/-, which will work out to ₹ 56,110/-; and we order accordingly. In the result, this ground of the assessee is partly allowed. - ITA No. 1239/Ahd/2014 - - - Dated:- 30-3-2017 - SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Assessee : Shri Anil N. Shah, AR For The Revenue : Shri James Kurian, Sr DR ORDER PER MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vidences. 4. Aggrieved, assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A), but could not succeed as all the disallowances were confirmed. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. First, we will take up the ground relating to claim of depreciation on motor car, claimed by the assessee at 50%; whereas both the lower authorities have restricted it to 15%. Ld. Counsel submitted that the motor car in question was purchased in previous assessment year, i.e. AY 2009-10, on 28.03.2009 for business purposes. Depreciation in AY 2009-10 was claimed @ 25% being half of 50% as the motor car was purchased in the month of March 2009 and this depreciation was claimed as per the CBDT Circular No.10/2009 dated 19.01.2009. Ld. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e s grievance through this ground is against ld. CIT(A) s order confirming the action of ld. Assessing Officer restricting the depreciation on motor car @ 15% as against 50% claimed by the assessee. On perusal of records, we find that the impugned motor car was purchased on 28.03.2009, i.e., in previous assessment year 2009-10. Admittedly, this motor car was purchased in the name of assessee-company and used for the purposes of assessee s business. The controversy involved herein is whether the depreciation on this car should be allowed @ 15% or 50%. We can find reply to this question in New Appendix I (See Rule 5) of Income-tax Rules, which specifies the rate at which depreciation is admissible in Part A relating to Tangible Assets at I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on Honda Motor Car @ 50 per cent on the ground that it was a 'light motor vehicle' and was therefore, covered within the meaning of a commercial vehicle. The assessee had relied upon the CBDT Notification No. 10/2009 dt. 19th Jan., 2009 which prescribes that enhanced depreciation @ 50 per cent is allowable on new commercial vehicles acquired on or after 1st Jan., 2009 but before 1st April, 2009 and which are put to use before 1st April, 2009 for the purpose of business or profession. The AO, however, allowed depreciation at the normal rate of 15 per cent on the ground that the enhanced rate of depreciation @ 50 per cent allowed by the CBDT notification dt. 19th Jan., 2009 (supra) would cover only trucks and other heavy vehicles and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee seeks to claim depreciation @ 50 per cent is a 'light motor vehicle' and therefore, the claim for enhanced rate of depreciation is on a sound footing. Ostensibly, the aforesaid provisions of the Depreciation Table annexed as Appendix-I to the Rules clearly apply and therefore, the lower authorities were not justified in denying assessee's claim for allowance of depreciation @ 50 per cent on the vehicle in question, subject to the fulfillment of other conditions. As a consequence, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and direct the AO to recompute the depreciation allowable on the impugned vehicle as per our aforesaid direction and in accordance with law. Thus, on this aspect assessee succeeds for statistical purposes. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o submitted that assessee has miserably failed to file any concrete details proving the nexus of travelling undertaken by the Directors before both the lower authorities. 16. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. The issue involved in this ground is against ld. CIT(A) s order confirming 20% disallowance of travelling expenditure of ₹ 74,814/-. On perusal of assessment order, we find that assessee has debited ₹ 15,69,777/- as travelling expenditure and out of this amount, ₹ 3,74,069/- was related to Directors travelling. Specific query was raised by the Assessing Officer for satisfying him about the business nexus of the travelling expenditure incurred by the Directors. In lack of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
