GOYAL KNITWEAR (P) LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, LUDHIANA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal acknowledged that the wife, being a CA, could offer financial advice. However, considering the possibility of personal enjoyment and her not being fully involved in business activities, the disallowance was restricted to 50% of the amount originally disallowed by the Assessing Officer.
What were the facts?
The assessee disallowed 50% of the travelling expenses for the foreign trip of the director's wife. The assessee argued that the wife, a Chartered Accountant, accompanied the director for business purposes and helped procure business. The revenue contended that the assessee failed to prove her contribution to business procurement.
What were the issues?
Whether the expenditure incurred on the foreign trip of the director's wife, who is a CA, is wholly for business purposes and therefore deductible.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DIVISION BENCH, ‘A’ CHANDIGARH
Before: SHRI SANJAY GARG & Ms. ANNAPURNA GUPTA
Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:
The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee
against the order dated 17.03.2016 of the Commissioner of Income
Tax [hereinafter referred to as CIT(A)]-5, Ludhiana.
The sole issue raised by the assessee through its grounds of
appeal relates to disallowance of Rs. 1,80,435/- made by the
Assessing officer out of the travelling expenses of Rs. 3,60,869/-
i.e. 50% of the expenses attributable to the foreign trip of the
wife of the Director of assessee company. The Ld. Counsel for
the assessee, at the outset, has submitted that the director of the
ITA No.807/Chd/2016- Goyal Knitwears (P) Ltd, Ludhiana 2
company namely Shri Manav Goyal had taken his wife namely
Smt. Silky Goyal along with him to foreign tour for business
purposes. He has further submitted that Smt. Silky Goyal was a
Chartered Accountant (C.A.) and was well conversant with the
company’s business and that her joining alongwith the director
helped in procuring the business for the company. That the
expenditure incurred by the Company on the foreign trip of the
wife alongwith director was for business purposes solely
attributable to the business activity of the assessee company.
The Ld. DR while relying upon the orders of the lower
authorities has submitted that the lower authorities have rightly
disallowed the expenditure relating to the foreign trip of the wife
of the Director. That the assessee could not prove with reliable
evidence that Smt. Silky Goyal contributed in any manner in
procuring business for the assessee company.
We have considered the rival submissions. The submission
of the Ld. Counsel is that the wife of the director namely Smt.
Sikly Goyal, who is a C.A., had participated in the negotiations in
procuring business deal for the company. On the other hand, Ld.
DR has pointed out that the work of the C.A. is to maintain
accounts and that she would not have contributed in procuring the
deal. Admittedly, the wife of the director is not a household lady
but a professionally qualified C.A. who certainly would be aware
about the financial position and accounts of the assessee company
and would be in a position to atleast advising the assessee
ITA No.807/Chd/2016- Goyal Knitwears (P) Ltd, Ludhiana 3
company in relation to the financial matters. However, it is also a fact on the file that she was not fully involved in business activity of the assessee and some sort of element of personal enjoyment on foreign trip along with director also cannot be ruled out. Hence, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we restrict the disallowance on this issue to 50% of the disallowance made by the Assessing officer on this issue. The appeal of the assessee is accordingly treated as partly allowed.
Order pronounced in the Open Court
Sd/- Sd/- (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (SANJAY GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated : 23.04.2018 Rkk
Copy to: • The Appellant • The Respondent • The CIT • The CIT(A) • The DR
More judgments on Section 37(1)
- Gillette India Limited, Mumbai vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, JaipurITA 1316/JPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Smit Navnitlal Soni, Ahmedabad, Gujarat vs ITO Ward-5(3)(1), Ahmedabad, GujaratITA 1434/AHD/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Shobha Sudamrao Tagad, Ahmednagar vs ITO WD-1, AhmednagarITA 311/PUN/2026[2023-24]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026AY 2023-24
- Digjam Limited, Jamnagar vs The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 349/RJT/2025[2021-22]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Rajesh Maru, Mhow vs ITO-5(1), IndoreITA 839/IND/2025[2023-2024]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2026AY 2023-2024
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Dwaraka Jewellers, Bhubaneswar vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S N D Waddar And Co vs. Sri Gaurav GuptaKarnataka · 30 Oct 2026
- Kanwar Enterprises Private Limited vs. The Joint Commissioner - State TaxTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bangi Mines And Minerals vs. The State Of TelanganaTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Arka Business Solutions vs. Principal Commissioner Of CustomsTelangana · 30 Oct 2026