TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (3) TMI 653
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 19,79,713/- made by the AO on account of the disallowance of entertainment expenses." 4. At the time of hearing before us, it was pointed out by the learned counsel that this issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of ITAT Delhi Bench 'H' in assessee's own case for the AY 2005-06. A copy of the said order is furnished before us. We find that the ITAT decided this issue in assessee's own case for AY 2005-06 vide ITA No.4072/Del/2010 and held as under:- "5. We have heard both the parties and gone through the material available on record. From the assessment order, we find that the Assessing Offic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llowance of car maintenance expenses." 7. At the time of hearing before us, it was pointed out by the learned counsel that there is a typographical error in the above ground raised by the Revenue. The disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was Rs. 4,07,302/- which was deleted by the learned CIT(A). Therefore, in this ground, instead of Rs. 40,70,302/-, the amount should have been Rs. 4,07,302/-. 8. Learned DR fairly admitted the above typographical error and stated that ground No.3 of the Revenue's appeal should be deemed to be modified by substituting the figure of Rs. 4,07,302/- instead of Rs. 40,70,302/-. 9. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and perused the material placed before us. It was pointed out by the lea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... employees and only Rs. 2,95,706/- is related to car repair and petrol expenses of the cars of the company, that too was incurred for the purpose of business. Considering the totality of above facts, we do not find any infirmity in the order of learned CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs. 4,07,302/-. Accordingly, ground No.3 is rejected. 11. Ground No.4 of the Revenue's appeal reads as under:- "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 39,57,448/- made by the AO on account of disallowance of tour and traveling expenses." 12. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and perused the material placed before us. The finding of the Assessing Officer in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and details regarding expenses by their letter dated 18.12.2008 to the AO. The AO had not pointed out any specific defects on those vouchers and the disallowance was made on an adhoc basis. The expenses has been incurred for business purposes for legitimate day to day business needs. The books of accounts were duly audited by the auditor under company's act and as per IT Law which have not found any defects therein. After considering the rival position carefully I tend to agree with the submission of the AR that AO cannot make disallowance u/s 37 of the I.T.Act on surmises and conjecture were no defects had been pointed out on the audited books of accounts and the expenses are wholly and exclusively incurred for business purpose. Therefore....