9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (6) TMI 44X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... new products. The assessee did not gained any benefit of enduring in nature. The said expenditure was rightly claimed as revenue expenditure. Ground No.2 stands allowed. Depreciation on office equipment - Purchases consisted of items such as coffee maker, T.V., microwave, washing machine which were installed at the residence of employees of the company and AO treating the same to be personal expenditure - HELD THAT:- The undisputed fact that emerges is that the fixed assets were purchased by the assessee and they entered into block of assets - simply because they were put at the disposal of employees, depreciation could not be denied to the assessee. Therefore, the disallowance made in this regard stand deleted. The ground stands allo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... M For the Assessee : Shri K.K. Ved and Ms. Urvi Mehta- Ld. ARs For the Revenue : Shri Michael Jerald-Ld. Sr. DR ORDER MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) 1.1 Aforesaid appeals by assessee for Assessment Years [AYs] 2010- 11, 2011-12, 2013-14 2014-15 contest separate orders of learned first appellate authority. Since common issues were involved, the appeals were heard together and are now being disposed-off by way of this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 1.2 The Ld. Authorized Representative, placed on record a chart in support of issues raised in the appeal. We have carefully heard the arguments advanced by both the representatives and perused relevant material on record. In the above ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es and the benefit arising from these expenses is enduring is nature. 6. Ad-hoc Disallowance of Travelling Expenses: The CIT(A) erred in upholding the ad-hoc disallowance of 30% of the total travelling expenses of ₹ 2,14,56,154 (i.e. ₹ 64,36,846) on the basis that such expenses is not fully verifiable. As evident, the assessee is aggrieved by disallowance of certain expenditure. Our adjudication to the subject matter of appeal would be as given in succeeding paragraphs. 2.2 The assessee being resident corporate assessee stated to be engaged in the business of sale, servicing, erection commissioning of construction equipment was assessed u/s. 143(3) on 20/12/2013 wherein the income of the assessee was determined at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation that balance expenditure would be allowable as equitably in the subsequent years. The stand of Ld. AO was confirmed by Ld.CIT(A). The Ld. AR has submitted that the assessee commenced its business of mining division in India. The said division was responsible for resolving the technical issues faced by the customers and also to enter into maintenance and repair contract for the mining machines which the Liebherr group may have sold to its customers in India. Accordingly, the technical and product specialists of the Liebherr group provided training to the assessee s employees on resolving the complications in the imported machines. Keeping in view the nature of expenses, we find that the action of Ld. AO in treating the said expen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce the assessee could not substantiate that the expenditure was incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. The stand of Ld.AO, upon confirmation by Ld. CIT(A), is under appeal before us. The Ld. AR has pleaded that there could be no question of any personal expenditure in case of a company and therefore, the said expenditure would be allowable. However, going by the said argument, whatever expenditure was claimed by a corporate assessee, could never be disallowed despite non-fulfilment of conditions laid down by Sec. 37(1). Not convinced with the arguments, this addition stand confirmed. The ground stands dismissed. 2.7 Capital Expenditure: Certain items under the head repair and maintenance expenditure claimed as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order. ITA No. 3497/Mum/2017, AY 2011-12 4. The assessee has assailed the disallowance of Sales Promotion Expenses and Travelling Expenses. The assessment was framed u/s 143(3) on 16/03/2015 wherein Ld. AO made similar disallowance of 40% against travelling expenses. Another disallowance was an adhoc disallowance of 10% against Sales Promotion Expenses for want of supporting evidences / documents. The learned first appellate authority reduced the travelling expenditure disallowance to 30% but confirmed the disallowance of sales promotion expenses. Aggrieved, the assessee is under further appeal before us. Going by the adjudication in AY 2010-11, the travelling expense disallow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
