AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (12) TMI 211
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the assessee had not filed any documents showing the premises as rented one for which the assessee had purchased tiles, adhesive and other raw materials. iii. On the facts and circumstances whether the learned CIT(A) was right in admitting the addition evidences filed by the assessee during appellate proceedings without affording opportunity to the Assessing Officer under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 when the assessee had not filed any documents showing the premises as rented one for which the assessee had purchased tiles, adhesive and other raw materials. 3. Apropos ground no. 1, the Assessing Officer observed that the sum of Rs. 8,54,603/- had been debited on account of travelling charges of staff and Rs. 6,40,211/- on account of travelling expenses of Director. The assessee was required to furnish complete details during the course of assessment. On perusal of the details filed by the assessee, the Assessing Officer observed that the payments included foreign tours of the Director, Saleem Bakshi and included tours to Thailand; that there was no component of foreign export in the business activity of the assessee; and that there appeared to be ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Assessing Officer has stated in para 4 of the assessment order that the travelling payments incurred and claimed also included the expenses incurred towards the foreign tour of the Director Saleem Bakshi, in support of which, the assessee company had also filed a copy of bill dated 06.06.2008; that from the perusal of the said bill, the Assessing Officer opined that there was no component of foreign export in the business activity of the assessee and there also appeared to be no nexus of the expenses with the business activities carried on by the assessee company; and that the A.O. had observed that the assessee company had debited the foreign tour bills in this account. 9. It was also considered by learned CIT(A) that the Assessing Officer failed to appreciate that the assessee company was an authorized dealer of commercial and passenger vehicles in Leh & Kashmir, of TATA Motors Ltd., and TATA Motors Ltd. had organized an Annual Dealers Conference, scheduled from 13th June, 2008 to 16th June, 2008 in Beijing, China. The dealer was required to bear the cost of travelling to and from Bei jing, China, and the other expenses were being borne by the Company for their stay at Beijing....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....major payments had been released through A/c payee cheques. iv. That if any of the expenditure proved to be personal in nature, in that case also, as per Section 37(1) of the Act, no addition could be made in the hands of the assessee company, as the same could only to be added to the personal income of the person who had benefited from the said expenditure. v. That the ad-hoc additions could not be made without the support of any material which could justify that either the said expenditure, to the extent of its disallowance, was never incurred, or that it was having no relation with the activities of the business of the company. 11. Further, since only a part of the claim made by the assessee has been allowed, it is obvious that the A.O. himself did not dispute the nature of the expenditure as a business expenditure. 12. For all the above observations, we do not find any error in the order of the learned CIT(A) in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, ground no. 1 raised by the department is rejected. 13. So far as regards ground nos. 2 and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Act. However, the amount incurred by the assessee, otherwise than as a tenant in respect of 'current repairs' has to be allowed u/s 30(a)(ii) of the Act. By the Explanation, the legislature clarified that any expenditure which is in the nature of capital expenditure, cannot be included while allowing the same u/ss 32(a)(i) and 32(a)(ii) of the Act. Therefore, it is very clear that whenever the assessee incurs expenditure for repair and maintenance of a building taken on lease for carrying on its business activity, it has to be allowed u/s 30(a)(i) of the Act. This position stands already considered are upheld in the following cases: I. Installment Supply P. Ltd. Vs. CIT, (1984) 149 ITR 52 (Del.) II. CIT Vs. Araish Exhibition Service, (1980) 3 Taxman 378 III. CIT Vs. Kalyanji Mavji & Co., (1980) 122 ITR 49 (SC) IV. CIT Vs. Hi Line Pens (P) Ltd., 306 ITR 182 (Del.) 18. Further, it was also taken into consideration by the learned CIT(A), that the Assessing Officer had failed to appreciate the provisions of law contained in the Income Tax Act, 1961; that since the premises in which the assess....