TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (5) TMI 934
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l was in relation to the additions made regarding the business of the assessee. 1.2. That the additions confirmed by the Hon'ble CIT(A) are not in accordance with the law and may please be deleted. 2.0 Addition of ₹ 69,113/- on account of interest paid for car loans. 2.1 That the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in confirming that the use of the case is wholly for the personal purposes and has erred in disallowing the interest paid on the loan as personal expenditure. 2.2 That the additions confirmed by the Hon'ble CIT(A) are not in accordance with the law and may please be deleted. 30. Addition of ₹ 7,300/- and ₹ 14,100/- out of total addition of ₹ 76,267/- on account of bonus paid to employees. 3.1 That the Hon....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he additions made may please be deleted. 6.0 Addition of ₹ 1,04,595/- on account of depreciation on car. 6.1 That the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance made by the ld. A.O. on account of the depreciation. 6.2 That the additions are made on surmises and assumptions and are therefore contrary to the law. 6.3 That the additions made are not in accordance with the law and may please be deleted. 7.0 Addition of ₹ 5,000/- on account of payment of professional fees. 6.1 That the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in confirming that the payment for the purpose of professional charges for attending the appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT is a personal expenditure of the assessee. 6.2 That the charges for the professi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....5,000/- were paid as professional charges for attending the hearing before the Tribunal. In view of this factual position, such payments, in any manner, cannot be said to be personal in nature as the payments were made for business purposes, consequently, ground nos. 1, 4 and 7 are allowed. 3. Through ground nos. 2, 5 and 6, the assessee has challenged the addition of ₹ 69,113/- on account of interest paid for car loan, addition of ₹ 21,971/- on account of vehicle maintenance and ₹ 1,04,595/- on account of depreciation on car. The contention raised on behalf of the assessee is that the assessee is in the business of trading and 1/5th of expenses for the assessment year 2003-04 were disallowed by the assessee itself. Keepi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nce of such payment is furnished by the assessee, consequently, the amount of ₹ 7300/- is allowed in favour of the assessee. As far as the amount of ₹ 14,100/- on account of bonus payment to the employees is concerned, we have found that there was no salary paid to the concerned employees by the assessee firm. If the salary was not paid during the relevant period, therefore, there is no question of payment of bonus. No details in support of its claim were filed by the assessee at any stage, therefore, it cannot be allowed. Resultantly, this ground is partly allowed. 5. The last ground pertains to addition of ₹ 2,83,500/- on account of presumed interest on loan given by the assessee to his father. The crux of arguments on....