TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1995 (2) TMI 119
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....payment of interest was not necessitated by business needs. He, therefore, disallowed the excess payment worked out at Rs. 85,886 and added it as income of the assessee. 2.1 On appeal before CIT(A), the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the disallowance of interest was not justified and added that no such disallowance was made in the earlier years. The CIT(A), however, held that the interest paid @ 18% on loans from directors was excessive and confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 2.2 The learned counsel for the assessee Shri R. Ganesan invited our attention to pages 1 to 3 of the paper book. wherein details of interest disallowed had been worked out at page 1. The comparative statement of interest paid a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... revenue expenditure which has been disallowed on the ground by treating it as capital expenditure. The Assessing Officer disallowed the said amount out of repairs and replacement expenses by observing that Rs. 13,000 had been paid to Rajinder Singh Yadav for boundry with iron angles, barbed wire at Damkheda land, which was treated as capital expenditure. Similarly, the expenditure of Rs. 1,12,200 for repairing and renovation of 106 and 109 Ansal Bhawan and paid to M/s Wadhare & Co. was also disallowed on the ground that the expenditure was incurred for enduring benefit of assessee's business. 3.1 On appeal before CIT(A), the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that no new asset was acquired or addition was made to the existing as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... submitted that the assessee had already capitalised certain expenses mentioned at page 10 of the paper book, which related to new almirahs constructed with commercial board with polished white teak board, etc. In view of the foregoing the learned counsel submitted that the expenditure was of revenue nature and no addition on this account was called for. In support of his pleas, the learned counsel relied on the following case law: 1. CIT vs. Bhagat Industries Corpn. Ltd. (1980) 18 CTR (P&H) 247 : (1980) 126 ITR 645 (P&H) 2. CIT vs. Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd. (1981) 131 ITR 641 (Del) 3. CIT vs. S. Zoraster & Co. (1982) 133 ITR 559 (Raj) 4. Rampur Distillery & Chemical Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1982) 30 CTR (All) 285 : (1983) 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the assessee involve very little travelling as its direct involvement in the actual purpose of the work was limited only to function as an intermediary which involve limited travelling. He further observed that the role of the assessee as intermediary in respect of commission receipts was also very limited as the actual purpose was accomplished by the parties to whom commission was paid. He also observed that the assessee had claimed considerable amount under the head postage, telegram and telephone which reduce the need for travelling. He, therefore, disallowed 25% of the claimed amount and made an addition of Rs. 4,20,204. 4.1 On appeal before the CIT(A), the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that complete details of the tra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... made by both the parties and have also perused the relevant record to which our attention was invited. We feel that the assessee has provided all the necessary details and its accounts are audited and it had already worked out disallowance under r. 6D of the IT Rules. Further the lower authorities have not pointed out any discrepancy with reference to any of the items of expenditure and the disallowance has been made only on estimate basis. In the circumstances of the case we feel that no disallowance is called for and the addition of Rs. 50,000, as sustained by the CIT(A), is deleted. 5. Ground No. 4 relates to disallowance of the claim of the assessee for deduction under s. 80HHC. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of the asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he total exports of Rs. 14,09,058 ought to be allowed. 5.2 The learned Departmental Representative submitted that in terms of the provisions of s. 80HHC(1), the assessee itself should have exported fish, whereas in this case others have exported on its behalf. He further submitted that the assessee did not have any licence and it is not clear as to who is the recipient of the foreign exchange. He, therefore, submitted that the claimed deduction has been rightly disallowed. 5.3 We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the parties and have also perused the relevant record to which our attention has been invited. Since the tax authorities have not discussed the certificates issued by the United Bank ofIndia,Bombaybranch,....