TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal directs assessee to substantiate expenses with proper evidence, emphasizes importance of documentation</h1> <h3>Dr. G. Premalatha Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward – 8(3), Hyderabad</h3> Dr. G. Premalatha Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward – 8(3), Hyderabad - TMI Issues:1. Disallowance of salaries to staff under section 40A(3) of the Act.2. Disallowance of expenditure on hospital maintenance.3. Disallowance of patient charges.4. Disallowance of expenditure on repairs, building, and vehicle maintenance.5. Disallowance of interest paid to the bank.6. Disallowance of diesel expenses.7. Disallowance of depreciation on hospital building.8. Disallowance of depreciation on assets due to lack of bills and vouchers.9. Levy of interest under section 234B of the Act.Issue 1: The AO disallowed 1/5th of the claimed staff salaries due to non-verifiable nature of expenses. CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance but reduced it to 1/6th. The disallowance was based on lack of clarity on payment methods. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order, directing the assessee to provide proper documentary evidence to substantiate the claims.Issue 2: The AO disallowed a portion of the expenditure on hospital maintenance due to lack of verifiable documentation. CIT(A) reduced the disallowance from 1/5th to 1/6th. The Tribunal directed the assessee to submit proper bills and vouchers to support the claimed expenses.Issue 3: Disallowance of patient charges was partially confirmed by CIT(A) based on lack of supporting documentation. The Tribunal upheld part of the disallowance, emphasizing the need for verifiable evidence to support the expenses.Issue 4: Disallowance of expenses on repairs, building, and vehicle maintenance was partially upheld by CIT(A) and reduced to 1/6th. The Tribunal stressed the importance of providing bills and vouchers to substantiate such expenses.Issue 5: Disallowance of interest paid to the bank was confirmed by CIT(A) as the amount was not proved to be utilized for business purposes. The Tribunal upheld this decision, emphasizing compliance with tax provisions.Issue 6: Disallowance of diesel expenses was confirmed due to personal use elements. The Tribunal upheld this decision based on the admission of potential personal use by the assessee.Issue 7: Disallowance of depreciation on the hospital building was confirmed due to non-business use. The Tribunal upheld this decision, emphasizing the need for assets to be used for business purposes to claim depreciation.Issue 8: Disallowance of depreciation on assets was confirmed due to lack of bills and vouchers. The Tribunal upheld this decision, stressing the necessity of providing proper documentation for asset acquisitions to claim depreciation.Issue 9: The Tribunal directed the assessee to provide proper documentation to substantiate all claims before the AO. The disallowances were set aside, and the AO was instructed to re-examine the issues based on the new evidence provided by the assessee.Issue 10: The levy of interest under section 234B of the Act was upheld as mandatory. The Tribunal directed the AO to proceed accordingly.In conclusion, the appeal of the assessee was treated as allowed for statistical purposes, and the case was remanded to the AO for re-examination based on proper documentary evidence to substantiate the claims.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
