9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 183X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shows that the Director, Mr. Deepak Kapoor has not visited any country with spouse or children. Similarly, the Director, Smt. Priyanka has also not visited any country along with her husband or family. The other persons namely Shyamjee Sudhakar and Shuchita Singhal are employees of the assessee company and they are not directors. Since full details are given regarding such foreign travelling expenses, therefore, under the facts and circumstances of the case, no ad-hoc disallowance, in our opinion, out of such expenses is called for. On account of business promotion expenses,assessee has given the full details of such expenses exceeding of ₹ 1,00,000/-. Therefore, we find no merit in the order of the Assessing Officer going for ad-h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ad-hoc basis out of business promotion expenses and foreign travelling conveyance by the Assessing Officer and upheld by the CIT(A). 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a company engaged in the business of consultancy services, software development, infotech and enabled service solutions. It filed its return of income on 20.09.2012 declaring income of ₹ 1,27,04,060/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee has debited the following expenses in its Profit Loss Account for the year under consideration :- S.No. Particulars Amount incurred 1. Business promotion ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the appellant that during the course of assessment proceedings it has submitted details of business promotion expenses for ₹ 1.95 lacs. The remaining expenses were small amounts spread over the year. The same were incurred for business purposes of the company. The details of the business promotion expenses were filed at page 49-50 of the paper book. It is seen that appellant has incurred ₹ 1,95,000/- for purchasing wall calendars, wrapping papers and table calendars and for that it has paid ₹ 1,95,000/- in the month of January 2012, for the remaining expenses appellant has not filed any other details except the month-wise details of the expenses incurred. As regards the foreign travel undertaken by the Directors, i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e for any personal visit. He further submitted that when the Assessing Officer has asked for details of business promotion expenses along with bill for expenses above ₹ 1,00,000/-, the assessee is not required to give the details of the expenses incurred which are below ₹ 1,00,000/-. Referring to the bill issued by All Time Offset Printers towards printing of Wall Calendar, Wrapping Paper and Table Calendar for ₹ 1,95,300/-, copy of which is placed at page 50 of the Paper Book, he submitted that this is the only expenditure which is above ₹ 1,00,000/- during the year. All the other expenses are below ₹ 1,00,000/- the details of which are given at page 49 of the Paper Book. Referring to the decision of the Hon b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Assessing Officer has filed the details of foreign travelling expenses during the financial year 2011-12 giving the name of the person, his/her designation, country visited, the purpose for such visit and the duration of the visit. The assessee has also given the details of expenses incurred which includes cost of Tickets, Insurance, etc. The details of such foreign travelling expenses are placed at page 48 of the Paper Book which are also filed before the Assessing Officer. A perusal of the details shows that the Director, Mr. Deepak Kapoor has not visited any country with spouse or children. Similarly, the Director, Smt. Priyanka has also not visited any country along with her husband or family. The other persons namely Shyamjee Sudhakar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made by the Assessing Officer. We, therefore, set-aside the order of the CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition. The ground raised by the assessee on the first issue is accordingly allowed. 11. The second issue raised by the assessee in the ground of appeal relates to disallowance of ₹ 25,200/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s 14A read with Rule 8D. 12. Ld. counsel for the assessee, at the outset, submitted that there is some computational error while computing the average investment. He submitted that the Assessing Officer while considering the average investment instead of taking opening investment and closing investment has considered only the opening investment and has not considered the closing inv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
