TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (11) TMI 139
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ect of deduction u/s 80HHC for Rs. 22,42,102/- of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Ld CIT (A) has erred in law and in facts by upholding the disallowance made by the ITO for Rs. 45,894/- being employees contribution to provident fund u/s 56(2) of the Income Tax Act. 3. The Ld CIT (A) has erred in law and in facts by upholding the disallowance made by the ITO on account of motor car loans interest u/s 36(3) of the Act without considering the facts properly that the car purchased in the name of Director of the company are appreciating in the books of the company as the part of the company's asset in his used completed by the company for his business purpose. The partial relief granted which is much more detaile....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rounds vide letter dated 17.8.2011 and now he proposed to withdraw the same. Considering the consent of both the parties and the preliminary request of the assessee for admission of additional evidence stands dismissed as withdrawn. 4. Briefly stated the relevant facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income for the assessment year 2003-04 declaring income of Rs. NIL after claiming the deduction u/s 80-HHC. The same was scrutinized u/s 143(3) of the Act and the total assessed income was determined at Rs. 45,63,885/-. AO made certain additions and also AO did not allow deduction u/s 80HHC on account of export incentives in view of negative export profits. Aggrieved with the same, assessee filed an appeal before the CIT (A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for statistical purposes. 6. Ground no.2 relates to disallowance of Rs.45,894/- being employees contribution to the Provident Fund u/s 56(2) of the Act. In this regard, Ld Counsel referred to the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Aimil Ltd. (321 ITR 508) (Del); Commissioner of Income-tax Vs P. M. Electronics Ltd. (Del) 313 ITR 161 (Del) and the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Alom Extrusions Ltd. (319 ITR 306) and mentioned that the issue is now settled in favour of the assessee and the assessee is entitled for deduction in respect of the payments, which are actually paid before the return of income is filed. Considering the settled nature of the issue, we are of the opinion that the assessee is en....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....building and the Allahabad High Court judgment in the case of Navdurga Transport Co (supra) was decided on the assessee firm and the vehicles were held in the names of the partners. Accordingly, the CIT (A) confirmed the disallowance of depreciation in full. Further, the CIT (A) confirmed a sum of Rs. 50,000/- out of the interest expenses of Rs. 2,33,474/- towards personal use and on ad-hoc basis. Further, out of motor car expenses, the CIT (A) confirmed a sum of Rs. 50,000/- suspecting that the use of vehicle for personal purposes cannot be denied by the Directors and his family members. No specific reasons were given while sustaining the same. 8. During the proceedings before us, Ld Counsel relied on the aforesaid judgments and mention....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rest of business of the assessee. The assessee-company demonstrated the ownership of the cars by referring to the entries in the books of account under the head "fixed assets". Further, we have perused the judgments in the case of Mysore Minerals Ltd (supra) and CIT vs. Metalman Auto P. Ltd. 336 ITR 434 (P & H) and find that the same helps the assessee. The ratio of the judgment in the case of Metalman Auto P. Ltd. (supra) reads as under: "S. 32: Depreciation - Assets in the name of managing director - Exclusive use by company - Depreciation under section 32 was allowable to the assessee company on the assets which were purchased in the name of managing director of the assessee company and his wife but, used exclusively for ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....appellant has also not been able to prove any business purpose in respect of the tour of these persons to London with supporting documents. From the AO's order it is evident that even the name and other details of any party whom these persons met for the purpose of any business in London has not been furnished before him. No primary evidence regarding any meeting or letter of intent for import of appellant's goods / material from any party in London or UK has been furnished by the appellant. Even before the undersigned no such evidence has been furnished. In view of this, therefore, it is evident that the appellant is not able to prove that foreign travel expenses of Rs. 6,99,708/- were incurred for the business of the appellant company. In....