VARDHMAN TEXTILE LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, LUDHIANA

In the result appeals of the Assessee and the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2002-03

disallowed an amount of Rs. 2,95,671/- debited towards the foreign travelling expenses of wife of CMD. The assessee contested that the wife of CMD also attends telephone calls note the messages for CMD in his absence. 21.2 The Ld. AR relied on the judgment of JK Industries Vs. CIT (2011) 11 Taxmann 72 wherein such amount was allowed

ACIT, LUDHIANA vs. VARDHMAN TEXTILES LTD., LUDHIANA

In the result appeals of the Assessee and the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2002-03

disallowed an amount of Rs. 2,95,671/- debited towards the foreign travelling expenses of wife of CMD. The assessee contested that the wife of CMD also attends telephone calls note the messages for CMD in his absence. 21.2 The Ld. AR relied on the judgment of JK Industries Vs. CIT (2011) 11 Taxmann 72 wherein such amount was allowed

ACIT,, LUDHIANA vs. M/S VARDHMAN TEXTILES LTD.,, LUDHIANA

In the result appeals of the Assessee and the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2002-03

disallowed an amount of Rs. 2,95,671/- debited towards the foreign travelling expenses of wife of CMD. The assessee contested that the wife of CMD also attends telephone calls note the messages for CMD in his absence. 21.2 The Ld. AR relied on the judgment of JK Industries Vs. CIT (2011) 11 Taxmann 72 wherein such amount was allowed

ACIT, LUDHIANA vs. M/S VARDHMAN TEXTILES LTD., LUDHIANA

In the result appeals of the Assessee and the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2002-03

disallowed an amount of Rs. 2,95,671/- debited towards the foreign travelling expenses of wife of CMD. The assessee contested that the wife of CMD also attends telephone calls note the messages for CMD in his absence. 21.2 The Ld. AR relied on the judgment of JK Industries Vs. CIT (2011) 11 Taxmann 72 wherein such amount was allowed

M/S VARDHMAN TEXTILES LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, LUDHIANA

In the result appeals of the Assessee and the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2002-03

disallowed an amount of Rs. 2,95,671/- debited towards the foreign travelling expenses of wife of CMD. The assessee contested that the wife of CMD also attends telephone calls note the messages for CMD in his absence. 21.2 The Ld. AR relied on the judgment of JK Industries Vs. CIT (2011) 11 Taxmann 72 wherein such amount was allowed

ACIT,, LUDHIANA vs. M/S VARDHMAN TEXTILES LTD.,, LUDHIANA

In the result appeals of the Assessee and the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2002-03

disallowed an amount of Rs. 2,95,671/- debited towards the foreign travelling expenses of wife of CMD. The assessee contested that the wife of CMD also attends telephone calls note the messages for CMD in his absence. 21.2 The Ld. AR relied on the judgment of JK Industries Vs. CIT (2011) 11 Taxmann 72 wherein such amount was allowed

ACIT,, LUDHIANA vs. M/S VARDHMAN HOLDINGS LTD.,, LUDHIANA

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

80M of the Act,which was also reduced by the AO after netting expenses incurred for earning the income as aforesaid. The Ld.CIT(A) following his own order for assessment year 2002-03, reduced the expenses allocated to Rs.1 lac. 17. Before us, the Ld. counsel for assessee contended that no expenditure had been incurred for earning dividend income

VARDHMAN HOLDINGS LTD.,,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT,,

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

80M of the Act,which was also reduced by the AO after netting expenses incurred for earning the income as aforesaid. The Ld.CIT(A) following his own order for assessment year 2002-03, reduced the expenses allocated to Rs.1 lac. 17. Before us, the Ld. counsel for assessee contended that no expenditure had been incurred for earning dividend income