TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (11) TMI 411
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... "(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in confirming the the disallowance of 'Export Promotion Expenses' being the foreign travelling expenses incurred by the President, Director and the Executive Director on the ground that the said expenses were not incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal ought to have restored the issue determining the applicability of all the three comparable relied upon by the appellant-assessee to the Transfer Pricing Officer to determine the applicability of the three comparable to the subject Assessment Year, particularly after h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (CIT(A)) concurred with the view of the Assessing Officer held that the Assessee had responsibility of only to supply and sell its SMPS to its sole customer i.e. A.E. (QCS). Thus by order dated 19 July 2011 the CIT(A) upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. (d) Being aggrieved, the appellant-assessee carried the issue of travel expenditure in appeal to the Tribunal. Before the Tribunal, the assessee contended that the travel expenses incurred in respect of the travel of its President and Directors to foreign countries were to have meeting and discussion with the buyers of its finished products. The Tribunal by the impugned order dated 8 May 2013 upheld the order dated 19 July 2011 of the CIT(A) to the extent of the claim made in respec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Court in the case "Sassoon J.David and Co.P.Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay, (118 ITR 263(SC))" and the decision of this court in the case "Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sales Magnesite (Pvt.) Ltd., (214 ITR 1 (Bom.)) ". It is also further pointed out by the learned Counsel for the appellant that for the subsequent years i.e. 2005-06 to 2011-12, these expenses have been allowed. However, for the Assessment Year 2002-03 and 2004-05, the Tribunal has set aside the matter for consideration of the Assessing Officer and it is still pending decision. In further support, it is submitted that the Board's Circular also requires the Revenue to adopt a broad approach in allowing the expenses incurred by a businessman as a deduction. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to restrict the expenses of travel only to Singapore visit where the foreign buyer of the appellant is situated, cannot be said to be perverse. It is a possible view. The fact that the assessee's expenses on travel have been allowed for subsequent years or have been set aside by the Tribunal in the earlier Assessment Years or subsequent Assessment Years, would not by itself govern the issue. It all depend upon the claim made for deduction and the contention of the assessee with regard to what was that expenditure incurred in that particular year. (g) In view of the above, question no.1 does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Hence, not admitted. 4. Appeal is admitted on substantial question of law no.2. 5. At the requ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d to the subject assessment year. On merits, the Tribunal by the impugned order rejected all the three comparables. The first comparable was rejected on the ground that it is a loss making unit, second comparable was rejected on the ground that it had extraordinary income in the subject Assessment Year and hence, not comparable; and the third comparable was rejected on the ground that the product was different. Thus, the impugned order of the Tribunal allowed the revenue's appeal before it. 8. We find that the three comparables which were relied upon by the appellant-assessee before the CIT(A) had not been examined by CIT(A) on merits of its applicability for the subject Assessment Year nor did the TPO, as same was not put before it fo....