TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (2) TMI 270
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he benefit of business of the assessee. The AO rejected the said submission and held the membership fee was incurred for the purpose other than business or profession of the assessee and disallowed the same by adding to the total income of the assessee. It is noticed from the written submissions as filed before the CIT(A) wherein it was contended that the payment of membership fee to Jain Vishva Bharati helps the assessee to get bright and meritorious students from the said institution to do their internship which in turn help the assessee to carry on day to day business. 5. The CIT(A) held the submissions are general in nature and futile exercise in trying to build a link between the assessee and the said institution. Before us, the same submissions as contended before the CIT(A) were advanced. We find no details showing in support of its calculation that the bright or meritorious students pursued Articleship and payment of membership fee was really patronized, the services of the assessee were filed and in the absence of such details, in our opinion, the assessee is not entitled to claim the deduction in computing the total income. We agree with the findings of lower authorities....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....adesh) and in the case of Sakal Papers P.Ltd. Vs CIT [1978] 114 ITR 256 (Bom.). We find no evidence whatsoever filed before us or before the authorities below except contract dated 05.10.2008 for education cost, partnership agreement dated 01.12.2007 and supplementary partnership dated 01.04.2009 at pages 09 to 19 of the Paper Book respectively. But, no such evidence was filed to show that Sh. Anurag Singhi pursued MBA , joined assessee thereafter, and business of the assessee increased due to having a degree in management course. The business network developed by Sh. Anurag Singhi by becoming a MBA from I.E. Business School and the additional business generated in the areas of Finance and Business Advisory Focused services. In the absence of which, we are unable to give credence to the submissions made before the two lower authorities and also before us. 10. Regarding the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of CIT vs U.P.Asbestos Ltd.(supra), the facts therein are that the assessee is a company engaged in the manufacture and sale of Asbestos sheet and allied products, wherein a son of a Managing Director pursued higher education and training in USA in pursuanc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by Sh. Anurag Singhi is not directly related to assessee's business and it is only an additional knowledge. Thus, the AO is right in finding it as capital asset as confirmed by the CIT(A). Therefore, the decision has placed reliance by the Ld.AR is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 12. Further, the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Sakal Papers Pvt.Ltd. (supra). The assessee therein is a Private Limited Company having engaged in publishing a leading Marathi Newspaper in Poona. The said company was closely held company by two shareholders i.e. parents of Miss Leela Parulekar who was an apprentice and holds a degree in Master of Arts in Poona University with English & French as special subjects. In pursuance of resolution passed by the assessee that Miss Leela Parulekar attended the Graduates' School of Journalism at Columbia University in New York and obtained a degree and thereafter, spent three months practical training in printing and lithography. On returning from USA, Miss Parulekar joined the Editorial Department of the assessee. The AO disallowed the said expenditure incurred by holding as it was not incurred for the as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....-6455-6460 of 2017 and prayed to remand the file to the AO for his fresh consideration in terms of the finding of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Raj Daddarkar & Associates (supra). 15. Ld.DR reported no objection. In view of the same, we remand the matter to the file of the AO for his fresh adjudication. The assessee is liberty to file evidence, if any, in support of his contention. Thus, Ground No.3.1 is allowed for statistical purposes. 16. Ground No.3.2 is relating to challenging the action of the CIT(A) in not allowing the depreciation as per the provision of the Act relating to the above said properties. In view of the decision rendered in Ground No.3.1 above, we are of the view that the issue raised in Ground No.3.2 is relating to the issue raised in Ground No.3.1. Therefore, we deem it proper to remand the matter to the AO for his fresh adjudication. 17. Ground No.4 is relating to confirmation of disallowance as per provisions of section 40(a)(i) of the Act on account of annual support payment and registration fee. 18. Heard both parties and perused the material available on record. The assessee debited an amount of Rs. 2,08,234/- as payment to Horwath Interna....