M/S. SHREE BAHUBALI STOCK BROKING LTD., (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SHREE BAHUBALI INTERNATIONAL LIMITED),KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 5(1), KOLKATA
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the expenses were incurred for business purposes to maintain business relationships with sub-brokers and clients. The AO had not doubted the genuineness of the expenses, and the company's board resolution and correspondence with the hotel supported the business nature of the transaction.
What were the facts?
The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed sales promotion expenses of Rs. 24,15,400/- incurred by the assessee for a dinner party, considering it a personal expenditure. The AO noted a significant increase in such expenses compared to the previous year and the absence of a similar event in an earlier year with higher profits.
What were the issues?
Whether sales promotion expenses incurred for a business dinner for clients and sub-brokers are deductible business expenses or personal expenditures.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH KOLKATA
Before: SHRI S. S. GODARA, JM & DR. A.L. SAINI, AM
Per Dr. A. L. Saini, AM: The captioned appeal filed by the assessee pertaining to Assessment Year 2013-14 is directed against the order passed by Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-2, Kolkata in Appeal No.10439/CIT(A)-2/2016-17 which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’).
The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows:
“1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the action of the Ld. CIT(A) to confirming the addition made by the A.O. on account of sales promotion expenses for Rs.24,15,400/-is contrary to the material evidences on records and the addition made bad in law. 2) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the action of the Ld. CIT(A) to confirming the addition made by the A.O. on account of sales promotion expenses of Rs.24,15,400/- is arbitrary, excessive and illegal. 3) That the assessment framed by the AO and party confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A)is unjust, illegal, arbitrary and excessive.
2 M/s Shree Bahubali Stock Broking Ltd.
4) That the above grounds of appeal will be argued in detail at the time of hearing and the appellant crave leave to submit additional grounds of appeal, if any, and/or alter, verify, modify or rectify any grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing.”
Brief facts qua the issue are that during the scrutiny proceedings, A.O noticed from the Profit and Loss a/c that assessee has debited an amount of Rs.89,17,970/- on account of sales promotion expenses. The assessee incurred expenses of Rs. 24,15,400/- for a dinner arrangement in Taj Bengal, a five star hotel also which included in the total amount of Rs.89,17,970/-. At the time of scrutiny proceeding the A/R of the assessee stated that dinner party was thrown for sub brokers and the clients of the assessee. However, A.O noticed that no such dinner party for 850 persons was thrown in the previous year 2011-12 though the volume of business as well profit were substantially higher in the last F. Y. 2011-12. The A.O also noticed that these sales promotion expenses for F.Y 2012-13 has been shown by the assessee more than double the previous year. Therefore, A.O held that the payment for dinner party for Rs.24,15,400/- is nothing but a personal expenditure, hence A.O made addition of Rs.24,15,400/-.
Aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A), who has confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer.
We have heard the rival submissions and persued the materials available on record. Ld. DR for the Revenue reiterated the stand taken by Assessing Officer, whereas ld. Counsel for the assessee relied on the submissions made before the ld. CIT(A). We note that the AO has made the entire disallowance of sales promotion expenses paid to Taj Bengal for booking for dinner party for sub- brokers, business associates and clients organized by the assessee. The AO should have considered the nature of the business of the assessee and the direct relationship of the parties. The assessee has incurred these expenses to maintain business relationship. The Board Resolution passed by the company clearly shows about incurring these expenses. The letter issued by the company to the 3 M/s Shree Bahubali Stock Broking Ltd. hotel and accepted by the Manager of the Hotel also mentioned the business relation of the dinner. It is purely a business transaction necessary for the carrying on of the business. We note that A.O has framed assessment u/s 143(3) and books of accounts were not rejected. The assessee incurred these expenses for business purposes. The Assessing Officer has not doubted the genuineness of these expenses. Therefore, considering the factual position narrated above, we delete the addition of Rs.24,15,400/-.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on this 21/02/2020. (S. S. Godara) (A. L. Saini) "या"यक सद"य / JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद"य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER कोलकाता /Kolkata; Dated: 21/02/2020 RS, Sr.PS
आदेश क" ""त"ल"प अ"े"षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ" / The Appellant- M/s Shree Bahubali Stock Broking Ltd.
""यथ" / The Respondent.- ITO, Ward-5(1), Kolkata 2. आयकर आयु"त(अपील) / The CIT(A), 3. आयकर आयु"त / CIT 4. 5. "वभागीय ""त"न"ध, आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता / DR, ITAT, Kolkata गाड" फाईल / Guard file. 6. //// By Order
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Kalra Traders vs. Union Of INDIAUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Ms Isoft vs. The Commissioner State TaxUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Sita Enterprises vs. Office Of The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Capri Global Capital LTD Through Represented By Its Law Officer Mr. Varun Kaljoria vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal SecretaryMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Sri Tatiparthy Venkata Swamy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 25 Oct 2026