Tribunal rules on personal expenses and foreign travel perquisite.

DAVID DHAWAN. Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX.

DAVID DHAWAN. Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. - TTJ 092, 161, [2005] 2 SOT 311 (MUM.) Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of personal use expenses.
2. Addition under Section 28(iv) for foreign traveling expenses.
3. Denial of deduction under Section 80RR for professional fees.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Disallowance of Personal Use Expenses:
The assessee contested the disallowance confirmed by the CIT(A) on personal use of electricity, motor car, and telephone expenses. The counsel relied on previous submissions without presenting new arguments. After reviewing the records and orders, the tribunal upheld the disallowance of two-thirds of electricity expenses and one-fourth of car maintenance, car depreciation, and telephone expenses, finding no reason to interfere with the authorities' decisions. Consequently, this ground of appeal was dismissed.

2. Addition under Section 28(iv) for Foreign Traveling Expenses:
The assessee, a film director, traveled abroad for film shooting, accompanied by his wife and children, with their travel expenses borne by the producer. The AO taxed these expenses as a "benefit or perquisite" under Section 28(iv), a decision upheld by the CIT(A). The tribunal examined whether these expenses constituted a perquisite. It noted that Section 28(iv) aims to tax benefits received as consideration for services rendered. However, it found no evidence that the family's travel expenses were part of the professional fee or a quid pro quo for services. The tribunal concluded that these expenses, incurred due to the nature of the assessee's work requiring temporary relocation, did not constitute a perquisite. Therefore, the addition under Section 28(iv) was deemed invalid, and the AO was directed to delete the addition of Rs. 1,17,030. The assessee succeeded on this ground.

3. Denial of Deduction under Section 80RR for Professional Fees:
The assessee claimed a deduction under Section 80RR for professional fees of US $25,000 received from a Nairobi-based entrepreneur. The authorities doubted the nature of this income, despite it being taxed as professional income. The tribunal reviewed an agreement and a letter confirming the payment as an advance for film direction. It found that the authorities' doubts were speculative and unsupported by evidence. The tribunal emphasized that the receipt was disclosed as income, and relevant documents confirmed its professional nature. It rejected the authorities' suspicions and directed the AO to grant the deduction under Section 80RR, allowing the assessee's claim for the professional receipt. Thus, this ground of appeal was allowed.

Conclusion:
The appeal was partly allowed, with the tribunal upholding the disallowance of personal use expenses but directing the deletion of the addition under Section 28(iv) and granting the deduction under Section 80RR.