TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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 Upholds Assessee's Appeal, Rejects Department's Claims on Tours, Food Expenses, and Interest</h1> The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the decisions made by the CIT(A) in favor of the assessee on all three issues raised by the Department. The ... - Issues:1. Disallowance under rule 6D with reference to all tours undertaken by an employee.2. Disallowance under rule 6B for expenses on food hampers, mango parcels, and dry fruits.3. Deletion of interest levied under section 216 of the IT Act.Analysis:1. The first issue pertains to the disallowance under rule 6D concerning tours undertaken by an employee. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, citing the decision in S.V. Ghatalia vs. 2nd ITO, where it was held that the disallowance should not be calculated with reference to each separate tour. Therefore, the ground raised by the Department was rejected.2. The second issue involves the disallowance under rule 6B for expenses incurred on distributing food hampers, mango parcels, and dry fruits to business customers during Diwali and Christmas. The IAC considered these expenses as advertisement costs, but the CIT(A) disagreed and deleted the disallowance based on the purpose of maintaining good customer relations. The Tribunal concurred, stating that no advertisement element was involved, leading to the rejection of this ground.3. The final issue concerns the deletion of interest levied under section 216 of the IT Act. The IAC imposed interest due to alleged underestimation of income in the first two advance tax instalments. However, the Tribunal found that the assessee had actually paid more tax than required based on the available assessment orders. As the estimates were in accordance with legal requirements and there was no underestimation, the provisions of section 216 were deemed inapplicable. Consequently, the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the interest levy, leading to the rejection of this ground.In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the decisions made by the CIT(A) in favor of the assessee on all three issues raised by the Department.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
