DCIT-3(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/ TRAVEL CORPORATION (INDIA) LTD., MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1750/MUM/2019Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 February 2020AY 2011-123 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal. This was primarily due to the tax effect of the appeal being below the revised monetary limit for filing appeals before the ITAT as per CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed the CIT(A)'s order which partly allowed the assessee's appeal against the assessment order. The appeal concerned disallowances made for foreign travel and advertisement/business promotion expenditures.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in restricting disallowances for foreign travel and advertisement expenses, and whether the appeal was maintainable given the tax effect and CBDT circular.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 37(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. 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)

For Appellant: Ms. Urvi Mehta (AR)
For Respondent: Ms. Kavita Kaushik (DR), Ms. Urvi Mehta (AR)
Hearing: 20/02/2020Pronounced: 20/02/2020

O R D E R

PER RAM LAL NEGI, JM

1.

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’).

2.

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.”

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 →