BINAYAK HI-TECH ENGINEERING LTD.,HOWRAH vs. I.T.O.,WARD-6(1), KOLKATA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that foreign travel expenses were incurred for business purposes and were allowable under Section 37. It also found that sales promotion expenses were incurred to promote sales and were reasonable given the nature of the business.
What were the facts?
The Assessing Officer disallowed foreign travel expenses and sales promotion expenses, treating them as personal. The CIT(A) affirmed these additions. The assessee contended that the foreign travel was for business purposes and sales promotion expenses were incurred to entertain clients and staff.
What were the issues?
Whether foreign travel expenses and sales promotion expenses incurred by the assessee were for business purposes and thus allowable as deductions.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: SHRI SANJAY GARG, HON’BLE & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, HON’BLE
PER RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :
This is the appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. CIT(A)”], passed u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’), dated 30/10/2019 for the Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Ground No. 1 is general in nature and requires no adjudication.
The ld. Counsel for the assessee, at the outset submitted that he is not pressing Ground No. 2 and the same is dismissed as such.
The issue raised in Ground No. 3 is against the confirmation of addition by the ld. CIT(A) of Rs.6,41,980/-, as made by the Assessing Officer on account of foreign travel expenses.
Brief facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings found that all three directors of the assessee company travelled abroad and incurred expenditure by way of air tickets, Binayak Hi-Tech Engineering Ltd.
dollar purchases, hotel charges etc. Similarly, one relative of the director Priyanka Jhunjhunwala also visited Germany and Dubai and some expenditure was incurred. The Assessing Officer noted that Priyanka Jhunjhunwala, is a relative of the director of the assessee company and disallowed the entire amount of expenditure of Rs.6,41,980/- incurred on account of foreign travel. The ld. CIT(A) simply affirmed the order of the Assessing Officer.
After hearing rival contentions and perusing the material available on record, we hold as follows:-
The assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing and export of steel & alloy pipes and allied products. The assessee company has directors who have to undertake foreign travel frequently. We note that the foreign travel was for the purpose of business. We find merit in the contention of the ld. A/R that these expenses fall within the ambit of Section 37 of the Act. Considering this, we are inclined to set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and deleted the addition of Rs.6,41,980/-. Accordingly, Ground No. 3 of the assessee is allowed.
The issue raised in Ground No. 4 is against the confirmation of addition by ld. CIT(A) of Rs.5,25,621/- on account of sales promotion expenses as made by the Assessing Officer.
The Assessing Officer observed from the evidence furnished by the assessee that during the year, the assessee has incurred sales promotion expenses to the tune of Rs.10,51,242/-. The Assessing Officer noted that these payments were made towards payment of credit card bills of Ms. Priyanka Jhunjhunwala and also for purchase of snacks, restaurant bill, cake shop Kookie Jar, purchase of dresses etc. as well as payments made by directors Binayak Hi-Tech Engineering Ltd.
towards restaurant bills. The Assessing Officer concluded that these expenses were personal in nature and added 50% of these sales promotion expenses at Rs.5,25,621/-.
We find that Ms. Priyanka Jhunjhunwala is an employee of the assessee company and the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted before us that the expenditure was incurred to entertain and treat the customers, clients and staff, with a view to promote the sales of the assesse company. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that keeping in view the nature of business of the assessee company, the sales promotion expenses are reasonable. Considering the facts on record as well as the submission of both the sides, we are convinced that the expenses incurred were for the purpose of promoting the sales of the assessee company. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and delete the addition of Rs.5,25,621/- on account of sales promotion expenses. Accordingly, Ground No. 4 raised by the assessee is allowed.
All other grounds raised by the assessee are general in nature.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the Court on 29th March, 2023 at Kolkata. (SANJAY GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Kolkata, Dated 29/03/2023 *SC SrPs Binayak Hi-Tech Engineering Ltd.
आदेश क" "ितिलिप अ"ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ" / The Appellant
""यथ" / The Respondent 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु" / Concerned Pr. CIT 4. आयकर आयु" अपील ( ) / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय "ितिनिध ,आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, कोलकाता/DR,ITAT, Kolkata, 6. गाड" फाईल /Guard file.
आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,
More judgments on Section 37
- Mohammed Javed Bhati, Sikar vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, SikarITA 994/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle… vs Sun Pharma Advanced Research Company…ITA 933/AHD/2025[2013-14]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
- Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle… vs Sun Pharma Advanced Research Company…ITA 932/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle… vs Sun Pharma Advanced Research Company…ITA 931/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Sun Pharma Advanced Research Company… vs The ACIT, Circle-2(1)(1), VadodaraITA 768/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Shining Steel Through Its Proprietor Kartik Gupta vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Redamancy World Through Its Proprietor Sanjay Kumar Goel vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Arj Exim INDIA vs. Additional Commissioner Of CGST, Appeals-Ii, New Delhi And OrsDelhi · 27 Oct 2026
- The State Of Bihar Through The Commissioner Of State Tax vs. Kaushlendra KumarPatna · 27 Oct 2026
- Ayush Sureshchandra Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026