Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES “E”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (AM) & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM)
O R D E R
PER RAM LAL NEGI, JM
This appeal has been filed by the revenue against the order dated 25.01.2019 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-8 (for short ‘the CIT(A), Mumbai, for the assessment year 2011-12, whereby the Ld. CIT(A) has partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee against the assessment order passed u/s 143 (3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the ‘Act’).
Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT (Appeals), the revenue has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal on the following effective grounds:-
1. “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) is justified in restricting the disallowance made in respect of foreign travel expenditure to Rs. 7,03,544/- instead of Rs. 28,14,176/- made by the AO, without appreciating that the assessee did not provide any documentary evidences in support of its claim during the assessment proceedings as well Assessment Year: 2011-12 during the appellate proceedings and the hence the ratio of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Calcutta Agency Ltd. ( 19 ITR 191) wherein it is held that the onus of proving necessary facts in order to avail the deduction u/s 37 (1) is on the assessee, is clearly applicable to the facts of the instant case under consideration.?
2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) is justified in restricting the disallowance made in respect of advertisement and business promotion expenditure to Rs. 12,46,379/- without appreciating that the assessee did not provide any documentary evidences in support of its claim during the assessment proceedings as well during the appellate proceedings and the hence the ratio of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Calcutta Agency Ltd. (19 ITR 191) wherein it is held that the onus of proving necessary facts in order to avail the deduction u/s 37(1) is on the assessee, is clearly applicable to the facts of the instant case under consideration.”