M/s. Chang Yun India Ltd., Gurgaon V. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 2034/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4093 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 16-08-2016
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 07-04-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : B : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, AM & SHRI N.K. CHOUDHRY, JM ITA NO.2034/DEL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 CHANG YUN INDIA LTD., 77, IDC MEHRAULI ROAD, GURGAON. PAN: AAACC0368E VS. ACIT, CIRCLE-3(1), NEW DELHI. ASSESSEE BY : MS NUPUR MANGLA, CA DEPTT. BY : SHRI ANIL KUMAR SHARMA, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 16.08.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16.08.2016 ORDER PER R.S. SYAL, AM: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE ARISES OUT OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) ON 31.01.2014 IN RELATION TO THE ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2008-09. ITA NO.2034/DEL/2014 2 2. THE ONLY ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL IS AGAINS T THE CONFIRMATION OF DISALLOWANCE AT 50% OF THE SCHOLARS HIP EXPENSES ON WHICH FBT WAS NOT PAID. 3. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT T HE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION FOR A SUM OF RS.1,75,700/- PAID A S SCHOLARSHIP TO THE EMPLOYEES OF THE ASSESSEE COMPAN Y. ON BEING CALLED UPON TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THIS EXPENDI TURE BE NOT DISALLOWED AS NOT FOR BUSINESS PURPOSE, THE ASSESSE E SUBMITTED THAT THIS AMOUNT WAS PAID AS AN INCENTIVE TO THE EM PLOYEES FOR EDUCATION OF THEIR CHILDREN AND FBT WAS PAID THEREO N. NOT CONVINCED, THE AO HELD SUCH EXPENDITURE TO BE NOT E XCLUSIVELY FOR THE BUSINESS PURPOSE. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD AL READY PAID FBT ON 50% OF SUCH EXPENDITURE, THE REMAINING 50% W AS DISALLOWED AND ADDED BACK TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSE SSEE. THIS RESULTED INTO AN ADDITION OF RS.87,850/-. THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION. ITA NO.2034/DEL/2014 3 4. HAVING HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED T HE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT SIMILAR I SSUE CAME UP FOR CONSIDERATION IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR TH E IMMEDIATELY SUCCEEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. VI DE ORDER DATED 8.11.2013, THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.4892/DEL/20 12, HAS DELETED SIMILAR DISALLOWANCE. A COPY OF SUCH ORDER HAS BEEN PLACED ON RECORD. THE LD. DR FAIRLY CONCEDED THAT THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE INSTANT YEAR ARE MUTATIS MUTANDIS SIMILAR TO THOSE OF THE IMMEDIATELY SUCCEEDING ASSE SSMENT YEAR ALREADY DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL. RESPECTFULLY FOLL OWING THE SAME, WE DELETE THE IMPUGNED ADDITION. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16.08.2016. SD/- SD/- [N.K. CHOUDHRY] [R.S. SYAL] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED, 16 TH AUGUST, 2016. DK ITA NO.2034/DEL/2014 4 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT AR, ITAT, NEW DELHI.