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's Decision: Mixed Outcome on Depreciation, Bad Debts, and Sales Promotion Expenses</h1> <h3>USHA RECTIFIER CORPORATION (I) PVT. LTD. Versus INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER.</h3> The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, overturning disallowances on depreciation for a car and telephone expenditure, while upholding disallowances on ... - Issues:1. Disallowance of claim under section 80J2. Disallowance of bad debt due from Punjab State Electricity Board3. Disallowance of other bad debts4. Disallowance of depreciation on car5. Disallowance of sales promotion expenses6. Disallowance of telephone expenditureDisallowance of Claim under Section 80J:The assessee appealed against the disallowance of Rs. 1,44,419 out of the total claim under section 80J amounting to Rs. 2,35,677 for the assessment year 1980-81. The dispute arose as the Internal Audit Commissioner was concerned about the source of funds for the silicon unit, suspecting it may have come from borrowed funds of the main branch. The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance, but the Tribunal, citing a previous decision, ruled in favor of the assessee, allowing the full deduction claimed.Disallowance of Bad Debt due from Punjab State Electricity Board:A bad debt claim of Rs. 9,300 due from the Punjab State Electricity Board was disallowed by the IAC (Assessment) and upheld by the CIT(A) due to lack of evidence showing the debt had become bad in the relevant year. The Tribunal confirmed the disallowance, stating that no proof was provided to substantiate the claim that repair expenses exceeded the recoverable amount from the Board.Disallowance of Other Bad Debts:Additional bad debts amounting to Rs. 1,795 were disallowed as they were deemed time-barred, with no evidence presented to prove they had become bad during the relevant assessment year. The Tribunal upheld this disallowance, finding the reasons given by the lower authorities to be valid and justifiable.Disallowance of Depreciation on Car:A disallowance of Rs. 4,960 on depreciation for a car was made by the IAC (Assessment) as the car was not registered in the name of the assessee-company. However, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that registration was not essential for ownership, and since the funds for the car were provided by the company, depreciation was allowed.Disallowance of Sales Promotion Expenses:A disallowance of Rs. 24,851 out of total sales promotion expenses was made by the IAC (Assessment), which was later reduced to 50% by the CIT(A). The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the expenses were already partially allowed and that the disallowance was fair and reasonable.Disallowance of Telephone Expenditure:A disallowance of Rs. 8,375 out of total telephone expenditure was made by the IAC (Assessment) due to personal use by the Managing Director. The CIT(A) confirmed this disallowance, but the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that the provision of the telephone at the Managing Director's residence was for business purposes, and the entire amount was allowable as a business expenditure.In conclusion, the appeal was partly allowed by the Tribunal, with various disallowances being either upheld or overturned based on the specific circumstances and evidence presented for each issue.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
