TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (7) TMI 1294
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nting to Rs. 12,39,357/- ii) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to disallow 3% of the expenses on account of venue management expenses, venue expenses, profession fees and stage decoration expenses amounting to Rs. 6,03,420/-, Rs. 6,93,500/- Rs, 8,84,019/- and Rs. 8,11,036/- respectively and allow the balance expenses. iii) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to allow consultancy fees (technical) amounting to Rs. 8,64,377/- iv) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(AA) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to allow Rs. 19,00,000/- paid to M/s Adu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l bill 12,48,000/- Rs. 16,508 not received due to some problem in logo metal 2 Sify Ltd Event 17,699 New management not accepting the liability 3 Times Foundation Times Foundation events thundering temples 1,81,300 Refundable deposits of Rs. 1,81,300 paid towards entertainment tax at the times foundation events thundering temples refund not forthcoming 4 Gere Foundation Time theores Richard Gere 31.12.2003 9,55,669 Amount already provided for last year. Payment is not recoverable so it has to be written off in this year. Impact in this year P&L 5 TILM Events 93,181 1,264,357 &nb....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nses, professional fee and stage decoration expenses. 6.1 The Assessing Officer has disallowed 10% of the venue expenses, professional fee; stage decoration expenses incurred on the ground of non production of satisfactory documentary evidence. 6.2 On appeal, the CIT(A) has restricted the disallowance to 3% of the said expenses after considering the facts that for Assessment Year 2006-07, the Assessing Officer disallowed only 1% of the similar expenses. 7 We have considered the rival contention and perused the relevant material on record. When the assessee has produced the name and other particulars of the parties along with the payments made to them and the Assessing Officer did not dispute the factum of payment made to the concer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ny new assets or enduring benefit to the assessee. Even if as a result of expenses incurred by the assessee, some facilities are availed by the assessee for smooth and convenient business activity; however, the same would not amounts to bringing into existence any new asset or benefit of enduring nature. Therefore, on the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any error or illegality in the order of the ld CIT(A), qua this issue. 10 Ground no.4 regarding disallowance of Rs. 19 lacs paid to M/s Adulx Display services. 10.1 The assessee claimed miscellaneous expenses of Rs. 1,33,29,862/- which includes Rs. 19 lacs paid to M/s Adulx Display services. The assessee claimed to have paid this expenditure to different tent houses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed on the material in support of the claim of the assessee. 13 We have considered the rival contention and perused the relevant material on record. Undisputedly, the assessee did not furnish the requite material before the Assessing Officer including the ledger account and mailing address of the parties and accordingly, the Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of the assessee. The CIT(A) has allowed the claim of the assessee purely on the basis of confirmation produced by the assessee during the appellate proceedings. The relevant part of the order of the CIT(A) on this issue reads as under: " I have carefully considered the issue. Since the appellant has produced confirmation for Rs. 19,00,000/- from M/s Adulex Display ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....adduce evidence relevant to any ground of appeal. (2) No evidence shall be admitted under rule (1) unless the Deputy Commissioner(Appeals) or, as the case maybe, the Commissioner(Appeals), records in writing the reasons for its admission. (3) The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) or, as the case maybe, the Commissioner(Appeals) shall not take into account any evidence produced under sub rule (1) unless the Assessing Officer has been allowed a reasonable opportunity; a) to examine the evidence or document or to cross examine the witness produced by the appellant, or b) to produce any evidence or document or any witness in rebuttal of the additional evidence produced by the appellant. (4) Noting contai....