TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (6) TMI 213
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r This is an appeal filed by the Revenue directed against the order dt. 29.3.2012 of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)-XII, New Delhi on the following grounds. "1. On the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld.CIT(Appeals) has erred in deleting the disallowance made by Assessing Officer of Rs.16,36,854/- representing 15% of conference (workshop) expenses. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... The assessee carried the matter in appeal. The Ld.CIT(Appeals) granted relief. Aggrieved the revenue is in appeal. 3. We have heard Shri Satpal Singh, Sr.D.R. on behalf of the revenue and Shri Paonam, the Ld.Counsel for the assessee. The Ld.CIT(Appeals) in his order at para held as follows: "Ground Nos. 2(a), (b) and (c) relate to the addition of Rs. 16,36,854/- representing 15% of the cost fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 60% and 40% respectively. Thus, a sum of Rs.29,59,855/- representing 60% of the net surplus was payable by the assessee to WWEA. However, while drawing up income and expenditure account of the conference (workshop) by the Auditors, only 15% of the cost of Rs. 1,09,12,363/- which worked out to Rs. 16,36,854/- was deducted as payable to WWEA as against actual amount of Rs. 29,59,855/-. Thus, after ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the conference (workshop). Thus, conclusion drawn by the A.O. that the amount of Rs. 16,36,854/- had been claimed twice is without any basis and unsustainable and the impugned addition is liable to be deleted inasmuch as the claim was made in terms of the agreement as found by the A.O. himself. It is relevant to mention here that vide invoice dated 19-03-2007 WWEA had raised a bill for Euro 3200....