9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 491X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .S. SANKLECHA SANDEEP K. SHINDE, JJ. Mr. Pulkit Sharma with Mr. Sanket Shah i/by Akshar Laws, Advocates for Appellant. Mr. Suresh Kumar , Advocate for Respondents. JUDGMENT : This Appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Act) is preferred by the Appellants- Assessee against the order dated 18.10.2001 (hereinafter referred to as 'impugned order') passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal'), Mumbai Bench 'A', Mumbai in relation to Assessment Year 1997-98. The Appeal was admitted on 2.9.2014 on the following substantial question of law: Whether the Tribunal erred in law in disallowing an amount of ₹ 11,76,540/- as a business expenditur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ance, the Appellants-Assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals,) XLI, Mumbai. The appeal was allowed vide order dated 15.9.2000. 6. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the CIT (Appeals), Respondent No.1 preferred an appeal before the Tribunal on various grounds which was allowed and resultantly disallowance was restored as made by the Assessing Officer 7. That against the order of the Tribunal, this Appeal is preferred. 8. Mr. Sharma the learned counsel for the Appellants submitted that the Tribunal had erred in confirming disallowance by ignoring evidence i.e. appointment letter of concerned employee, copy of resolution passed by the Board of Directors, agreement with the concerned employee a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ulge that the expenditure incurred by the Appellants-Assessee on such a course was a personal expenditure of the Appellants' director and not business expenditure. Mr. Suresh Kumar further submitted that if the Appellants were genuinely attempting to secure better administration and was in need of such person, Appellants could have sent some other employee for completing course in the business administration. He thus submitted, having chosen son of one of the directors for completing course which was of general , in nature, it cannot be said that Appellants-Assessee have established nexus between the expenditure and its business activities. He has also submitted that course in 'Business Administration' was readily available ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no agreement between her and Sakal Papers. Thus, Sakal Papers, claimed deduction of ₹ 29,654/- as business expenditure. The Tribunal in the given case disallowed the said expenditure on the ground that there was no commitment, contract or bond taken from trainee. Issue came up before this Court in Income Tax Reference No.49 of 1968 and the following question was referred: Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, expenditure incurred on foreign education of Ms. Parulekar was allowable as a deduction in determining the business profits of the Company for the Assessment Year 1961- 62? That in the Reference, reasons given by the Tribunal were found unsustainable and as such, Reference was answered in affirmative ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Shrinath Motors (Supra) somewhat similar issue fell for consideration before this Court wherein the Appellant-Company had paid fees of ₹ 1,75,000/- on behalf of one of its directors for completing course from S.P.Jain Institute of Management and Research. Deduction was claimed for such an expenditure which was disallowed throughout upto Tribunal. Against that order of the Tribunal, Shrinath Motors Private Ltd. had filed an appeal before this Court. While dealing with various contentions, which were almost similar to the case in hand, the Division Bench of this Court after taking survey of various judgments including that of Divyakant C. Mehta (Supra) upheld the orders of Authorities and dismissed the appeal filed by the Appellant. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
