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>Appeal Outcome: Relief on Some Grounds, Disallowance Upheld on Others</h1> <h3>UBS PUBLISHERS DISTRIBUTORS LTD. Versus INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER.</h3> The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, providing relief on certain grounds while upholding disallowances on others. The disallowance under s. 40A(5) of ... - Issues:1. Disallowance under s. 40A(5) of the IT Act, 1961.2. Disallowance of entertainment expenses.3. Disallowance under s. 80VV of the IT Act, 1961.4. Disallowance of medical expenses under s. 40 (c).Issue 1: Disallowance under s. 40A(5) of the IT Act, 1961:The appeal challenges the disallowance of Rs. 48,061 made under s. 40A(5) by the Assessing Officer. The contention revolves around the interpretation of Rule 3 of the IT Rules, which provides the procedure for determining perquisites assessable to the assessee. The debate focuses on whether the disallowance should be based on the actual expenditure incurred by the company or the value of perquisites assessable in the hands of the employee. The Tribunal, citing various High Court decisions, concludes that in the case of a company, the disallowance under s. 40A(5) should be calculated based on the actual expenditure incurred by the company. The appeal on this ground is dismissed.Issue 2: Disallowance of entertainment expenses:The appeal challenges the disallowance of Rs. 2,79,587 on account of entertainment expenses. The Assessing Officer found that a significant portion of the expenses constituted entertainment expenditures, which are subject to disallowance under s. 37(2A) of the IT Act. The Tribunal upholds the disallowance, emphasizing that even if the expenditure is incurred for business purposes, if it falls under entertainment expenses, it must be disallowed. However, a portion of the claimed expenditure is considered separately for reassessment by the Assessing Officer. The retrospective amendment to s. 37(2A) impacts the treatment of entertainment expenses.Issue 3: Disallowance under s. 80VV of the IT Act, 1961:The appeal contests the disallowance of Rs. 15,210 under s. 80VV, specifically focusing on a retainership fee paid to auditors. The Tribunal examines the allocation of the fee towards income-tax proceedings and other work. It concludes that since a separate fee was paid for attending to income-tax cases, no disallowance is warranted from the retainership fee. The disallowance under s. 80VV is recalculated, providing relief to the assessee.Issue 4: Disallowance of medical expenses under s. 40 (c):The appeal challenges the disallowance of Rs. 2,814 on account of medical expenses under s. 40 (c). The Tribunal analyzes the nature of the cash reimbursement of medical expenses and its characterization as salary. It notes that the cash payment, even if considered a part of the salary, falls under the provisions of s. 40 (c) regarding excessive or unreasonable expenditure resulting in remuneration or benefit to a director. The Tribunal upholds the disallowance, citing the application of s. 40 (c) to the expenditure incurred by the company.The Tribunal partly allows the appeal, providing relief on specific grounds while upholding disallowances on others.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
