9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 341X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in the case of Mr. Anand Prasad [ 2020 (10) TMI 1237 - ITAT DELHI] . DR could not controvert the above finding in that decision as to why it does not apply. It is not case of revenue that assessee has not incurred those expenditure or those are not incurred in the business of the assessee. We allow the appeal of the assessee - ITA. Nos. 3830, 7052 and 3831/Del/2017 - - - Dated:- 30-3-2021 - Amit Shukla , Member ( J ) And Prashant Maharishi , Member ( A ) For the Appellant : Pradeep Dinodia R. K. Kapoor, CAs For the Respondents : Ajay Kumar, Sr. DR ORDER Prashant Maharishi , Member ( A ) 1. I.T. Appeal 3830 (Del) of 2017 is filed by Shri Akshay Jaitly for assessment year 2013-14 against the order of the Ld. C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re incurred for earning such remuneration would be allowable to the assessee if those were wholly and exclusively incurred for the purpose of the business of the assessee. The Ld. Assessing Officer held that salary, communication expenditure, repairs, professional fees, entertainment expenditure and currier charges do not have any nexus with the salary income as partner earned by the assessee and, therefore, he made a disallowance of ₹ 11,51,875/-. Consequently, total income of the assessee was assessed at ₹ 2,96,52,000/- against the returned income of ₹ 2,85,130/- by order under Section 143(3) of the Act dated 14.12.2015. 5. Assessee challenged the same before the Ld. CIT (Appeals) wherein the disallowance was confirme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isallowed the expenditure on his own of ₹ 2,36,681/- and ₹ 4,13,145/- for assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15 respectively. The identical issue has been considered in the case of Mr. Anand Prasad vs. ACIT in I.T. Appeal No. 7053 (Del) of 2017 for assessment year 2014-15 dated 28.10.2020. The issue has been decided as under:- 7. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the lower authorities. The fact shows that the assessee is an individual who is a partner in a law firm namely Trilegal and received a remuneration of ₹ 3,22,60,925/- which is offered for taxation u/s. 28(v) of the Act. The assessee also received share of profit from the above firm of ₹ 31624561/- which is claim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penses incurred by the assessee does not have any nexus with remuneration earned does not have any legal backing. He does not say that these expenditure are not incurred by the assessee for the purpose of the business. Naturally when the income is taxed as remuneration from firm as business income, any expenditure incurred to earn that income is an allowable business expenditure, if it satisfy the relevant criteria. It is not the case of the lower authorities that whole of the expenses incurred by the assessee were not incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business i.e. to earn remuneration from partnership firm. Therefore, disallowance made by the Ld. AO and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) cannot be sustained. In view of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee for both years are allowed. ITA No. 3831/Del/2017 Shri Anand Prasad V. ACIT AY 2013-14 13. I.T. Appeal 3831 (Del) of 2017 for assessment year 2013-14 is filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT (Appeals)-20, New Delhi, dated 31.03.2017. Assessee is a partner in a law firm deriving remuneration as a partner. He has incurred total expenditure of ₹ 21,43,409/- out of which suo moto disallowance of ₹ 13,02,133/- was made. The assessee in nutshell claimed deduction of expenditure of ₹ 8,40,976/- as business expenditure against remuneration received from a partnership firm. Such remuneration is chargeable to tax as business income of the assessee. The Assessing Officer disallowed the same and the Ld. C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
