2014 (4) TMI 24

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of Rs.1,09,473/- made by AO by invoking provisions of section 14A read with rule 8D?" 3. At the time of hearing before us, it is stated by the learned DR that this issue is squarely covered by the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. Vs. CIT, New Delhi - [2012] 347 ITR 272 (Delhi) and, in view of the above decision, the matter may be sent back to the file of the Assessing Officer for readjudication. 4. Learned counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, stated that the total relief allowed by the learned CIT(A) in this regard is only Rs. 1,09,473/- and tax effect would be less than Rs. 40,000/-. Due to smallness of the tax effect, the cost of litigation, if the matter is sent back t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....& 3 of the Revenue's appeal read as under:-  "2. Whether ld.CIT(A) was correct on facts and circumstances of the case and in law in deleting the addition of Rs.8,55,988/- made by AO on account of foreign traveling of directors despite the fact that no justification of these expenses was produced by the assessee before the AO during the course of assessment proceedings? 3. Whether ld.CIT(A) was correct on facts and circumstances of the case and in law in allowing the foreign traveling expenses to the assessee by admitting additional evidences and without giving an opportunity to the AO to examine the same?" 7. The facts of the case are that during the accounting year relevant to the assessment year under consideration, the asse....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... travel expenses not claimed to be allowed. On careful appraisal of the details of the purpose of foreign travel, copies of bills and tickets furnished before me, I hold that the foreign travel undertaken by the two Directors of the appellant was for business purpose and hence allowable under Section 37(1). Both Directors are actually engaged in the business of appellant and merely since they happen to be spouses is not sufficient to hold entire foreign travel expenses for personal purpose. The ld. AO has not brought out any specific adverse evidence in support of the suspicion that the foreign travel expenses were for personal purpose and not for business purpose. In view of the above, the disallowance made by the AO is not sustainable. Ac....