9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 139X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se of S.A Builders Ltd. v. CIT [2006 (12) TMI 82 - SUPREME COURT] held that the reasonableness of the expenditure is to be judged from the point of view of the businessman and the Revenue cannot sit in the arm chair of the businessman to decide what is reasonable and what is not. - Decided in favour of assessee. Foreign travel expenses - allowable business expenses u/s 37(1) - AO disallowed the claim based on the type of visa, which the trustee had produced for consideration - HELD THAT:- It does not mean that under a tourist visa, no business can be transacted. There is no material to indicate that no business was done by the assessee in these trips. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) as well the Tribunal is just and proper. Under the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 67,92,100/- for the very same purpose. In view of the fact that one of the trustees had not signed to the resolution to the extract given to the Officer, the resolution was not accepted as a valid resolution. That in the earlier years, no remuneration was provided. Suddenly, there is no reason as to why such a huge amount should be paid as remuneration. That both the trustees are husband and wife and therefore, they have apportioned the profits among themselves. The remuneration is exorbitant. The authorisation for such a payment is not in accordance with law. On considering the material, the Assessing Officer came to the conclusion that a sum of ₹ 12,00,000/- per annum to Sri Sunit Gupta and a sum of ₹ 6,00,000/- per an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itted to consider the following substantial question of law: Whether the finding of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in upholding the view of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) with regard to remuneration of ₹ 1,68,78,000/- paid to trustees even though the same is against to provision of Section 40A(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act? 4. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that yet another question of law arises for consideration, which reads as follows: Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in allowing foreign travel expenses when the assessee has not established that such expenditure was incurred exclusively in connection with business affairs of the assessee and as such ingre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bleness of the expenditure is to be judged from the point of view of the businessman and the Revenue cannot sit in the arm chair of the businessman to decide what is reasonable and what is not. Under these circumstances, we are of the view that there is no error committed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) or by the Tribunal, which calls for any interference. Consequently, the findings recorded by the Tribunal in upholding the view of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) with regard to remuneration of ₹ 1,68,78,000/- paid to the trustees is just and proper. Therefore, the first substantial question of law is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. 6. So far as the second substantial question of law ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
