TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (12) TMI 1155
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(-)2,06,89,572/- on the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The learned CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the disallowances of Rs. 10,43,680/- being a portion of travelling expenditure incurred for the purpose of business, without appreciating that the expenditure was incurred for the purpose of business on the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. The learned authorities below fell in error in assuming that the travel expenditure was to be demonstrated by correlating to the orders obtained, which is akin to the revenue sitting in the arm chair of the appellant to ascertain the purpose of every expenditure, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. The learned CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 3,50,291/- being business development expenditure, incurred for the purpose of business on the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. The learned CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 44,796/- being expenditure on clubs, which were necessary for hosting visiting clients etc, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. The learned CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the additions of Rs. 24,26,050/- being est....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed dividend during the year, on the fact and circumstances of the case. 3. The appellant craves leave of this Hon'ble Tribunal, to add, alter, delete, amend or substitute any or all of the above grounds of appeal as may be necessary at the time of hearing. 4. For these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of appeal, the appellant prays that the appeal may be allowed for the advancement of substantial cause of justice and equity. 4. The assessee prayed that additional ground be admitted in the interest of advancement of natural justice and these grounds were inadvertently not raised on earlier occasion and there is no necessity of investigation of any fresh facts on this issue and also placed reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of NTPC Vs. CIT 229 ITR 383. The DR did not put any strong objection for admission of additional grounds. 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. There is no necessity of investigation of any fresh facts on this issue and there is good and sufficient reason for not raising this ground in earlier occasion. Accordingly, by placing reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in the c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the material on record. As discussed in earlier para, this expenditure was also disallowed by AO on adhoc basis which is not proper. He should specify which part of the expenditure is personal in nature incurred by the Director. Accordingly, we remit the issue back to the file of AO and direct the assessee to produce all details of this expenditure and thereafter AO has to re-examine the issue afresh. 8. Next ground is with regard to disallowance of club expenses at Rs. 44,796/-. The assessee incurred an expenditure of Rs. 89,592/- under the head 'clubs'. Assessee not furnished the details of expenditure on behalf of whom this expenditure is incurred though it was treated that this was incurred towards foreign buyers. The AO disallowed 50% of Rs. 89,592/-, at Rs. 44,796/-. 8.1 We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. As discussed in the earlier para, the assessee has to establish that this expenditure was incurred only exclusively for the purpose of business by placing necessary evidence so as to entertain the foreign buyers. Accordingly, this issue is remitted to the file of AO for fresh consideration. 9. Next ground is with regard to sale of scrap of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ified in appreciating that the capital gains of Rs. 59,94,346/- offered inadvertently in the return of income, and not deleted during assessment proceedings by the AO, ought to have been deleted, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. The learned CIT(A) was not justified in appreciating that the sale of the TDR, were not exigible to capital gains as held by various authorities and the same ought to have been deleted in the order passed, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law in appreciating that it is settled position of law that "consent does not confer jurisdiction" and the income of Rs. 59,94,346/ - not deleted by the AO, ought to have been deleted by the CIT(A), on the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. The learned CIT(A) was not justified in law in appreciating that the AO ought to have granted the benefit accruing to the appellant, by deleting the capital gains offered to tax inadvertently, in consonance with Circular No. 14 [XL-35] of 1955, dated April 11, 1955, on the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned CIT(A) was not justified in law in appreciating that the Appellant had an inherent right to mak....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....apital gain is long term which is exempted from tax and it cannot be considering for computing the income or loss of the assessee and it should go out of the computation of income. This plea of the assessee not considered by the CIT(A). Hence, in the interest of justice, we remit this issue back to the file of CIT(A) for proper adjudication instead of dismissing the issue as infructuous by CIT(A). 17. Next ground is with regard to addition of Rs. 11,57,408/- as interest income from other sources. The AO brought into tax an amount of Rs. 11,57,408/- under head "interest income". According to AO, the assessee received interest from following parties: 1. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., - 22,77039/- 2. SBI - 34,295/- 3. BESCOM - 39,875/- Total 23,49,209/- 18. The AO observed that assesse declared interest income of Rs. 12,73,688/- and there was under statement of interest income on this ground at Rs. 10,75,521/-. Similarly, there was an receipt of income of Rs. 81,887/- from the Executive Engineer. This was not offered to tax. The AO brought these two amounts totaling Rs. 11,57,408/- under head "Income from Other Sources". The contention here is that there is a brought f....