Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By:
RelevanceDefaultDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Tribunal upholds disallowance of trip expenses citing lack of business connection</h1> <h3>Sewasons Enterprises Ltd. Versus Income-Tax Officer</h3> The Tribunal affirmed the disallowance of trip and traveling expenditures made by the Revenue authorities and upheld by the Commissioner of Income-tax ... Disallowance of trip expenditure - quantification of expenses - Held that:- Quantification of disallowance does not involve any question of law. It is dependent upon the facts and circumstances in a particular year. The Revenue authorities have quantified the disallowance at ₹ 3,48,870 on an analysis of the details of the expenditure produced by the assessee. Once an estimated opinion is being taken by an authority, then, that opinion ought not to be intervened by the higher appellate authority unless it is demonstrated that such opinion is based on consideration of irrelevant material. No such facts have been brought to my notice. Therefore, do not see any justification for interfering in the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) as far as confirmation of disallowance of ₹ 3,48,870 is concerned. - Decided against assessee Disallowance of traveling expenditure - Held that:- In the case of Sayaji Iron and Engg. Co. v. CIT [2001 (7) TMI 70 - GUJARAT High Court] disallowance was made out of the telephone expenditure under the belief that such facility might have been used by the employees of the company for personal purpose. Here in the present case, the learned Assessing Officer has brought on record that no business visit was required to be undertaken at Goa, and therefore, the expenditure cannot be debited in the accounts of the assessee. - Decided against assessee Issues:- Disallowance of trip expenditure and travelling expenditure by the Assessing Officer.- Confirmation of disallowance by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals).- Justification of disallowance and rejection of the appeal.Analysis:1. The assessee appealed against the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) order for the assessment year 2009-10, contesting the rejection of books of account and disallowance of specific expenditures.2. The Assessing Officer disallowed a significant amount from the trip expenditure due to unsupported expenses, resulting in a 10% disallowance confirmed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals).3. The disallowance of Rs. 3,48,870 from trip expenditure was challenged by the assessee, arguing that maintaining complete records for certain expenses was challenging, and the quantum of disallowance was high compared to previous years.4. Regarding the disallowance of Rs. 48,858 under travelling expenses for a Goa trip without business connection, the Commissioner upheld the disallowance, citing lack of supporting evidence.5. The assessee contended that no personal element should exist in company expenditures based on a court decision, but the Assessing Officer argued the expenditure was not for business purposes, leading to disallowance.6. The Tribunal upheld the disallowance decisions, stating that the Assessing Officer correctly rejected the books of account and quantified disallowances based on specific defects in expenditure details, without any legal errors.7. The Tribunal emphasized that the quantification of disallowances is factual and not a legal question, supporting the Revenue authorities' decision unless proven based on irrelevant material, which was not the case here.8. The argument that no personal element should exist in company expenditures was rejected, as the expenditure must be for business purposes to be allowed, which was not the case for the Goa trip expenditure.9. Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming the disallowances made by the Revenue authorities and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) for the specified expenditures.This detailed analysis covers the issues raised in the legal judgment, outlining the arguments presented by the parties and the Tribunal's reasoning for upholding the disallowances.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found