Business expenditure and depreciation claims need documentary proof; unsupported foreign travel and leasehold assertions were disallowed.

Foreign tour expenditure was not deductible as business expenditure because the assessee failed to produce cogent evidence showing that the travel was wholly for business purposes; bare assertions about expansion or contacting non-resident Indians were insufficient, and the disallowance was sustained. Depreciation on leasehold properties, including a lease for perpetuity, was also not allowable because the assessee did not establish the leasehold character and tenure by proper documents, such as the lease deed. The court treated house-property ownership concepts as not controlling the depreciation claim and required documentary proof of the underlying lease arrangement.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the assessee was entitled to deduction of foreign tour expenditure as business expenditure. (ii) Whether depreciation was allowable in respect of leasehold properties including lease for perpetuity.

Issue (i): Whether the assessee was entitled to deduction of foreign tour expenditure as business expenditure.

Analysis: The assessee was required to establish by cogent evidence that the foreign travel was incurred wholly for business purposes. Mere assertions that visits were made for future expansion or for contacting non-resident Indians were insufficient in the absence of supporting particulars showing the nature of business transacted, the projects connected with the visits, or the actual business dealings resulting from them. The allowance granted by the first appellate authority was found to rest on conjecture, while the assessee had not discharged the initial burden of proof.

Conclusion: The disallowance of the foreign tour expenditure was upheld and the issue was decided against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether depreciation was allowable in respect of leasehold properties including lease for perpetuity.

Analysis: The claim for depreciation depended on proof of the leasehold character and tenure of the property by proper documents. In the absence of the lease deed or comparable proof, the assessee could not establish that the property was held on such terms as to attract depreciation. The court treated the ownership definition for house-property taxation as not controlling the allowance of depreciation and held that, without proof of the lease arrangement, the claim could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The refusal of depreciation was upheld and the issue was decided against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed in both surviving grounds and no interference was called for with the orders of the authorities below.

Ratio Decidendi: A deduction or depreciation claim must be supported by cogent documentary evidence establishing the factual foundation for the allowance, and in the absence of such proof the claim cannot be granted on assumptions or surmise.

---