ABHISHEK DHURKA,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 46(1), KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 543/KOL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 August 2026AY 2023-202410 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, finding that while the source of cash was accepted, a portion of the credit card expenses included personal elements. A disallowance of Rs. 50,000/- was made on account of the personal element in travel, service charges, and entertainment expenses.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed credit card expenses of Rs. 16,78,325/- for hotel stays, restaurants, and travel. The Assessing Officer disallowed the entire amount, treating it as personal expenditure, as the assessee failed to provide sufficient documentary evidence to establish business nexus. The CIT(A) upheld this disallowance.

What were the issues?

Whether credit card expenses for hotel stays, restaurants, and travel are wholly and exclusively for business purposes and thus allowable as a deduction.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 37(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘SMC’ BENCH AT KOLKATA

Before: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘SMC’ BENCH AT KOLKATA Before SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No(s). 543/KOL/2026 Assessment Year(s) 2023-24 Abhishek Dhurka I.T.O., Ward-46(1), Kolkata Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AMEPD6445Q Appearances: Assessee represented by : Manoj Kataruka, Advocate. Department represented by : Sumit Purkaystha, Sr. DR. Date of concluding the hearing : 12.08.2026 Date of pronouncing the order : 14.08.2026 ORDER PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'CIT(A)'] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for AY 2023-24 dated 07.02.2026. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: "1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the action of the Ld. CIT(A) to uphold the order of the AO in making addition of Rs. 16,78,325/- u/s 37 of the I.T Act, 1961 is arbitrary, excessive and illegal. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the action of Ld. CIT(A) upholding the order of the AO making an addition of Rs. 16,78,325/- is contrary to material evidences on record and the addition is arbitrary, excessive, illegal and bad in law. 3. That the order of the Ld. CIT(A) confirming the addition made by the A.O. is arbitrary, excessive and illegal.

6.

It was submitted that the assessee had shown a sum of ₹4,74,747/- as drawings which was separately mentioned and was not claimed as a deduction, a sum of ₹2,07,098/- as iPhone EMI expenses, the iPhone being shown as an asset in the balance sheet and was being used for business purposes, ₹8,081/- as iPhone EMI interest, ₹4,648/- as charges and ₹2,50,214/- paid to creditors for business purposes and another sum of ₹7,998/- for subscription as regards the credit card of

7.

Page 45 of the paper book is the general ledger statement of HDFC credit card and page 47 is the general ledger statement of IndusInd Bank in which these transactions are mentioned. 8. Our attention was also drawn to page 5 of the paper book, which is the balance sheet. The Ld. CIT(A) has mentioned in para 7.7 that the assessee was not able to furnish the bills. The Ld. AR submitted that the sales promotion expenses were business expenses and there were other subscription expenses as well. 9. The Ld. DR submitted in the rejoinder that page 4 of the assessment order mentions travelling to Dubai and this was personal in nature because the same did not relate to the business of the assessee.

Deputy/Assistant Registrar ITAT, Kolkata Benches Kolkata

More judgments on Section 37(1)

All 6,995 judgments and leading authorities on Section 37(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →