TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (3) TMI 556
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ought to have allowed the traveling expenses as claimed by the appellant in full and refrained from upholding the disallowance of Rs.2,19,703/-. 2. The learned Commissioner (A) ought to have appreciated that the traveling expenses incurred by the wife of the Managing Director of the company along with him was essentially required for the business purpose and was liable to be allowed as held in various judicial pronouncements relied upon and cited before him. 3. The learned Commissioner (A) ought to have appreciated that the interest expenditure incurred by the appellant was exclusively for the purpose of business and no part of the loan was borrowed having been diverted to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....personal travel of directors and their spouses. The AO was of the view that the said expenditure was not allowable. He therefore made the disallowance of Rs. 2,19,703. 5. The assessee carried the matter to the ld. CIT(A) and submitted that the director of company was suffering from hypertension and coronary artery disease, whenever he traveled, his wife accompanied him as an attendant and such expenses was therefore linked to the business of the assessee company, so expenses for business trip of the director was allowable. 6. The ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee observed that the wife accompanying the husband solely as an attendant was not palatable, such accompanying could not be treated exclusively for th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ny travelled for business purposes and his wife accompanied him. In the present case, the facts are not clear as to whether the director traveled for the business purposes, even there is contradiction in the stand taken by both the parties since the AO mentioned that the expenses were incurred for directors and their spouses, while claim of the assessee is that the wife of one of the director accompanied him because he was suffering from various diseases. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of the AO by observing that the inherent element of enjoyment and entertainment to wife from such trips could not be ruled out. But nothing is brought on record to substantiate the above observations. We therefore considering the totality of the facts as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....order are reproduced verbatim as under: "8. The assessing officer has added back a sum of Rs. 21,22,921/- being 12% (SBI lending rate) on a sum of Rs. 1,76,91,011/- holding it to be the interest attributable to the advance made by the Appellant company to its Director Sri. B.S.Chadha. The interest of Rs. 21,22,921/- was disallowed out of the interest claimed by the Appellant company alleging that the interest was not attributable to the business requirement of the appellant company and the borrowed funds had been diverted for non-business purposes. It is submitted that the amount advanced to Sri.B.S. Chadha stood at Rs. 1,76,91,011/- on the last date of the accounting year. At the time the Appellant company had also owed Sri. Chadh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... be deleted. In the circumstances, the impugned additions as made by the assessing officer are opposed to law and liable to be deleted in toto." 13. The ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee confirmed the addition by observing in para 8.1 of the impugned order as under: "8.1 I find the whole argument of the A.R. on this issues is misconceived. The Assessing Officer has, nowhere in the assessment order stated that the loan is to the Director, B.S. Chadha, or paid to his relatives at his instance. Had it been so, entire amount would have been treated as deemed dividend u/s. 2(22)(e) of the I.T. Act. The Assessing Officer on the other hand had specifically picked out the persons who have been advanced interes....