9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 1531X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... el expenses - AO had disallowed travel expenses only on the ground that Sapin Shah and Priyanka Shah were not partners of the firm - Tribunal has observed that it was true that Mr. Sapin Shah and Ms. Priyanka Shah were not partners of the assessee firm, but it was also true that they were employees of the firm who had travelled abroad for the purposes of the business of the assessee - Held that:- The Tribunal correctly noted that the assessee had filed details of sales made at Hong Kong and Dubai in respect of its foreign travel expenditure and was of the view that merely because the two persons who went abroad were not partners of the assessee firm, would not justify the disallowance. In the opinion of this court, having regard to the find ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - MS. HARSHA DEVANI AND MR. A.S. SUPEHIA, JJ. For The Appellant : Mr Bhatt, SR. Advocate With Mrs Mauna M Bhatt, Advocate ORAL ORDER ( PER : HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI) 1. Heard Mr. M.R. Bhatt, Senior Advocate, learned counsel for the appellant. 2. In this appeal, the appellant has proposed in all five questions which are stated to be substantial questions of law. 3. Insofar as proposed question [A] is concerned, ADMIT . The following substantial question of law arises for consideration: Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of ₹ 30,27,85,170/- made on account of loss claimed due to cancellation of forward contract? ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were not partners of the assessee firm, but it was also true that they were employees of the firm who had travelled abroad for the purposes of the business of the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed details of sales made at Hong Kong and Dubai in respect of its foreign travel expenditure and was of the view that merely because the two persons who went abroad were not partners of the assessee firm, would not justify the disallowance. In the opinion of this court, having regard to the findings of fact recorded by it, no infirmity can be found in the reasoning adopted by the Tribunal. 6. Proposed question [D] relates to deletion of disallowance of ₹ 2,51,91,060/- made under section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rate of labour charges and further the gross profit rate was also better as compared to the preceding year. The Commissioner noted that the quantity of rough diamonds issued for manufacturing was higher in the year under consideration than in the immediately preceding year and it was for this reason that the labour charges for the year under consideration were higher as compared to the earlier year. The Commissioner (Appeals) further found that there was a reduction in the rate of labour charges in the year under consideration resulting in a higher rate of gross profit as compared to the earlier year. He further found that the assessee had filed relevant details of the labour charges and no defect had been pointed out in the same. Consider ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
