9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 701X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e to the assessee. We therefore remand this issue to CIT(A) to verify these expenditure and to consider the claim of assessee in accordance with law. Adhoc disallowance under the head staff welfare expenses, marketing development expenses, conveyance expenses, travelling and conveyance expenses and miscellaneous expenses - HELD THAT:- It is not denied that there is no personal expenditure embedded in the form of marketing development expenses, conveyance expenses, travelling and conveyance expenses and miscellaneous expenses claimed by the assessee that is incurred in cash. It is also submitted that except for self made vouchers, there are no other evidence to support the claim of the assessee. However, the rate of disallowance adopted by the Ld.AO does not have any basis and is on a higher side. We therefore restrict the disallowance to the extent of 10% and direct the Ld.AO to compute the disallowance accordingly. - Smt. Beena Pillai, Judicial Member And Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Shri Rajesh Athavale For the Revenue : Dr. K.R. Subhash, CIT/DR ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER: The present appeal is filed by the assessee against order d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ides in the right of record placed before us. 2.3. It is noted that the assessee had raised the issue before the Ld. CIT(A) and all necessary evidences in support to consider the issue was very much available on record. The issue raised by the assessee deserves to be considered, in order to determine the correct the computation of income in the hands of the assessee. Considering the submissions and respectfully following the decisions of Hon ble Supreme Court in case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd.Vs. CIT reported in (1998) 229 ITR 383 and Jute Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in 187 ITR 688, we admit the additional ground raised by the assessee. Accordingly, the additional grounds filed by assessee stand admitted. Brief facts of the case are as under: 3. The assessee filed its return of income for A.Y. 2016-17 on 29/11/2016 declaring the total income of Rs. 11293450/-. The case was selected for complete scrutiny and in response to notice u/s. 143(2) of the act, details were submitted to the Ld.AO by the assessee. After considering the documents filed by the assessee as called for the Ld.AO passed the assessment order by making the following disallowances: A. Disallowa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vant to Assessment Year 2013-14, certain advances were made to M/s.Nimbus India, M/s.Archis Agro Services, M/s.Givudan International, SA M/s.Urmi Chemicals, the details are explained by the Ld.AR as under: I. It is submitted that, the advances made to M/s.Nimbus India were for supply and fixing up the hoist type goods lift in factory at Wada. The Ld.AR submitted the supplier neither did supply the lift nor returned the advance and, therefore, was not recoverable for several years. The Ld.AR further submitted that, the factory at Wada has been shut down on various reasons and, therefore, though it was in the nature of business expenditure which was incurred for the purposes of business exigencies, it was not nomenclature in the books of account as bad debts and was claimed during the year under consideration. II. In respect of the payment of advance made to M/s.Archis Agro Services, the Ld.AR submitted that, it was towards development of garden within the factory premises. It is submitted that this payment was incurred for maintenance and development and maintenance of the garden on regular basis within the factory premises, which was not properly carried out by the service provider ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion of the Ld.AO in respect of thse expenditure being not in the nature of business exigencies may be allowed as a business expenditure. The Ld.AR thus prayed for the claim to be considered under section 37(1) in order to compute the correct tax in the hands of the assessee. 4.5. On the contrary, the Ld.DR submitted that the claim of assessee regarding these expenditure to be in the nature of business exigency has not been verified by the authorities below. He thus submitted the issue may be remanded for necessary verification. We have perused the submission advanced by both sides in the light of the records placed before us. 4.6. On perusal of the assessment order, it is very clear that all the details necessary to verify the relevant fact in respect of this expenditure claimed by the assessee was available before the Ld.AO. However, the Ld.AO proceeded to verify the requirement as per section 36(1)(vii) and 36(2) of the Act, for the reason that the assessee nomenclated these expenditure to be bad debt. 4.7. Before the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee raised the contention of considering this expenditure to be business expenditure which has not been verified by the Ld.CIT(A). We note that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
