KOPRAN LABORATORIES LTD, MUMBAI V. ACIT CEN CIR-21, MUMBAI

ITA 7180/MUM/2008

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1536 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-06-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 18-05-2010
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 19-12-2008
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S S RANA
• Assessee Lawyers: MITUL GORADIA
• Keywords: Business income

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH A, MUMBAI. BEFORE SHRI D. MANMOHAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 7180 /MUM/2008. ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2006-07. KOPRAN LABORATORIES LTD., ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF PARIJAT HOUSE, 1076, VS. INCOME TAX, CEN.CIR.-21, DR. E. MOSES ROAD, MUMBAI. WORLI MUMBAI 400 018. PAN :AAACK4406H APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI MITUL GORADIA, AND SHRI BHUPENDRA KARKHANIS. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.S. RANA, AND SHRI PIYUSH JAIN. O R D E R PER J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS)-IV, MUMBAI DATED 18-09-20 08 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE DISALL OWANCE OF RS.1,72,584/- ON ADHOC BASIS, OUT OF THE TOTAL TRAV ELLING AND CONVEYANCE EXPENSES BY CONSIDERING THE SAME AS PERS ONAL EXPENSES AND THE REASONS ASSIGNED FOR DOING SO ARE WRONG AND CONTRARY TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE PROVISIO NS OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AND THE RULES MADE THEREUNDER. 2 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE DISALL OWANCE OF RS.25,000/- ON ADHOC BASIS, OUT OF THE TOTAL SALES PROMOTION EXPENSES BY CONSIDERING THE SAME AS NOT RELATED TO THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY AND THE REASONS ASSIGNED FO R DOING SO ARE WRONG AND CONTRARY TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE PROVISIONS OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, AND THE RUL ES MADE THEREUNDER. 2. WE HAVE HEARD MR. MITUL GORADIA, LEARNED COUNSE L FOR THE ASSESSEE AND MR. S.S. RANA, THE LEARNED D.R. 3. COMING TO GROUND NO. 1, WE FIND THAT THE REVENU E AUTHORITIES HAVE MADE THE DISALLOWANCE BASED ON A SIMILAR DISAL LOWANCE MADE IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR. THIS BENCH O F THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA NO. 6161/MUM/2008 FO R THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 VIDE ORDER DATED 10-09-2009 HAS DELETE D THE DISALLOWANCE BY FOLLOWING THE ORDER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003 -04. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04, THE SMC BENCH OF THE MUMBA I TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 3555/MUM/2007, ORDER DATED 8 TH OCT., 2007, DELETED A SIMILAR DISALLOWANCE BY HOLDING THAT IN THE CASE OF A COMPA NY, THERE CANNOT BE ANY PERSONAL EXPENSES AND A DISALLOWANCE ON THE GRO UND THAT THE COMPANY HAS INCURRED PERSONAL EXPENSES, CANNOT BE S USTAINED. IT RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE C ASE OF M/S SAYAJI IRON & ENGINEERING CO. VS. CIT 253 ITR 749 (GUJ.). RES PECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME, WE ALLOW GROUND NO. 1 OF THE ASSESSEE AND DELETE THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1,72,584/-. 3 4. GROUND NO. 2 IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED IN PART. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 4 TH DAY OF JUNE, 2010. SD/- SD/- (D. MANMOHAN) (J. SUDHAKAR REDDY) VICE PRESIDENT. ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. MUMBAI, DATED : 4 TH JUNE, 2010. WAKODE COPY FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT. 2. RESPONDENT 3. C.I.T. 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, B-BENCH. (TRUE COPY) BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI.