9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 729X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Addition of car expenses claimed by the assessee for the involvement of personal element - Held that:- Since the personal use of the said vehicles by the assessee could not be ruled out, some disallowance for such personal use, in my opinion, was very much called for and since such disallowance made by the A.O. to the extent of about 25% for such personal use is fair and reasonable, I do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) confirming the same Disallowance of maintenance cost of office equipment - Held that:- Admittedly there was a failure of the assessee to produce the supporting bills and vouchers for verification of the A.O. Keeping in view all it would be fair and reasonable to restrict the disallowance made by the A.O. out of maintenance cost of office equipment to ₹ 25,000/-. Addition on account of expenses on staff training which was done on the basis that the total expenditure incurred by the assessee on salary was only ₹ 2,08,142/- - Held that:- Keeping in view the nature of the assessee’s business, the entire disallowance made by the A.O. on account of staff training expenses is not justified and it wou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rred in confirming following adhoc disallowances made by Assessing Officer. (a) Out of Car Expenses ₹ 25,000/- (b) Out of maintenance cost of Officer Equipment ₹ 50,000/- (c) Expenses on Staff Training ₹ 88,400/- (d) Loss on Sale of Asset Rs. 34,679/- 2. At the time of hearing before the Tribunal, the learned counsel for the assessee has not pressed ground no 1 raised in this appeal of the assessee. The same is accordingly dismissed as not pressed. 3. Apropos the issue involved in ground no 2 relating to the taxability of the profit claimed to be earned by the assessee on sale of agricultural land, the relevant facts are that the assessee is an individual who is engaged in the business of trading of computer and peripherals under the name and style of his proprietary concern, M/s. Tech International. The return of income for the year under consideration was filed by him on 28.09.2010 declaring a total income of ₹ 13,90,737/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... land of the assessee was not fit for the agricultural purposes as there was no water facility available and it was surrounded by pucca road on one side and housing and small industries on the other side. He, therefore, rejected the claim of the assessee that the land sold by him was an agricultural land and confirmed the addition made by the A.O. on account of long term capital gain arising to the assessee from the sale of his land. 5. I have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material available on record. Although the learned counsel for the assessee has once again relied on the documentary evidence filed by the assessee to show that the land in question sold by the assessee was an agricultural land as per the relevant land record, he has failed to adduce any evidence to show that the said land was actually utilised by the assessee for carrying out any agricultural activity during the period of two years immediately preceding the date of transfer. He has also not been able to produce any evidence to rebut or controvert the findings recorded by the Ld. CIT(A) in his impugned order that the land sold by the assessee was not fit to use for agricult ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce of ₹ 88,400/- made by the A.O. on account of expenses on staff training which was done on the basis that the total expenditure incurred by the assessee on salary was only ₹ 2,08,142/-. Although the Assessing Officer accepted the fact that training was required to be imparted in the ever changing electronic market, he disallowed the entire expenditure incurred by the assessee on staff training for want of supporting evidence. In my opinion, keeping in view the nature of the assessee s business, the entire disallowance made by the A.O. on account of staff training expenses is not justified and it would be fair and reasonable to restrict the same to 50%. As regards the disallowance made on account of loss claimed by the assessee on sale of assets, I find that the said loss cannot be claimed by the assessee in case of depreciable asset after the introduction of the concept of block of asset . Even the learned counsel for the assessee has not been able to bring on record anything to show that the relevant block of asset had got exhausted during the year under consideration so as to justify the claim of the assessee for loss on sale of assets. I, therefore, find no infi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
