9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 686X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed ex-parte. 3. The assessee's first and foremost sole substantive grievance raised in the instant appeal challenges correctness of CIT(A)'s action restricting the Assessing Officer's action invoking sec.14A r.w. Rule 8D(2)(iii) disallowance only to the extent of investments yielding actual exempt income reading as under : "2.5. However, the claim of the appellant that only those investment are required to be considered, on which the exempt income is received, relying on the decision of the Honie ITAT Mumbai in the case of Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. dated 19-06-2020, reported in 117 taxmann.com 518 (Mumbai - Trib.) appears to be correct. It was also held in the case of Vireet Investment (P .) Ltd. [2017] 165 ITD 27 (Delhi - Trib.)(SB ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e any different regarding the assessee's latter substantive ground seeking to reverse both the lower authorities action disallowing the alleged sales promotion expenses of Rs.4,81,477/- representing dinner for guests at JW Marriot Hotel, Pune. The CIT(A)'s detailed discussion affirming Assessing Officer's action to this effect reads as under : "Ground No. 2: 3.1. Vide this ground of appeal, the appellant contended that the AO erred in disallowing the sum of Rs.4,81,477- on account of sales promotion expenses and adding it to the total income of the appellant. The AO observed that the appellant had debited a sum of Rs.4,81,477/- on dinner for guests at JW Marriot. But the appellant failed to furnish any bill for these expenses and a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g with its customers, suppliers and bankers and therefore, for business purpose, as claimed by the appellant. In absence of the same, it can not be said that these expenses were incurred by the appellant wholly and exclusively for the business of the appellant. Therefore, I find no reason to interfere with the order of the AO in respect of this addition. The addition made by the AO is upheld. This ground may be treated as dismissed." 5.1. We note with the able assistance coming from the Revenue side that the assessee has not been able to prove the impugned dinner expenses to have been incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business by way of filing cogent supportive evidence. We thus affirm the instant latter disallowance of s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
