News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing | GST - Goods and Services Tax
From the Courts »
 A.G. Industries Pvt. Ltd., House No. 26, Anandlok, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1), New Delhi
 Sahara India Financial Corpn. Ltd., 1-Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow. Vs. The Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Range-I, New Delhi.
 Chahat Exim Pvt. Ltd, A-113, Safdurjung Enclave, New Delhi Vs. ACIT, Circle-6(1), New Delhi
 DCIT, Cent. Central -8, New Delhi Vs. Dynasty Construction (P) Ltd., M-11, Middle Circle Connaught Place, New Delhi
 Ms. Simran Hoon C/o S.J.B. Relan, Chartered Accountant 901, Vikram Tower, 16, Rajendra Place, Vs. DCIT Circle-3 New Delhi.
 Shri Mukul Joshi, D-45, Second Floor, South Extension Part-2, New Delhi. Vs. The DCIT, Central Circle-19, Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi.
 Virgo Marketing Pvt. Ltd. C/o Rra Taxindia,D-28, South Extension,Part-I, New Delhi – 49 Vs. Ito, Ward 26(4), Bulandshahr
 Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, LTU, New Delhi. Vs. SRF Ltd. Block – C, Sector – 45, Gurgaon
 Agson Global Pvt. Ltd, A-25, Nirman Vihar, New Delhi Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax , Central Circle-28, New Delhi
 IRCON International Limited, Palika Bhawan, R.K. Puram Sector-13, New Delhi Vs. Addl. C.I.T., Range-11, New Delhi.
 ACIT, Central Circle-26, New Delhi Vs. Majestic Properties Pvt. Ltd., 1/18B, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi.

M/s Jbm Industries Ltd Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax New Delhi
October, 14th 2019
$~14 to 17
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                                                Date of Decision: 30.09.2019

+      ITA 519/2019
       M/S JBM INDUSTRIES LTD                              ..... Appellant
                               Through:   Mr. R. Santhanam with Mr. Arujun
                                          Prasad Sinha, Advs.

                               versus

       COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX NEW DELHI..... Respondent
                    Through: Ms. Adeeba Mujahid for Mr. Ajit
                             Sharma, Advs.
+      ITA 520/2019

       M/S JBM INDUSTRIES LTD                                  ..... Appellant

                               Through:   Mr. R. Santhanam with Mr. Arujun
                                          Prasad Sinha, Advs.
                               versus

       COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX NEW DELHI ..... Respondent

                               Through:   Ms. Adeeba Mujahid for Mr. Ajit
                                          Sharma, Advs
+      ITA 524/2019

       M/S JBM INDUSTRIES LTD                                  ..... Appellant

                               Through:   Mr. R. Santhanam with Mr. Arujun
                                          Prasad Sinha, Advs.
                               versus



ITA 519/2019 & connected matters                                      Page 1 of 17
       COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX NEW DELHI ..... Respondent

                               Through:   Ms. Adeeba Mujahid for Mr. Ajit
                                          Sharma, Advs
+      ITA 525/2019

       M/S JBM INDUSTRIES LTD                                  ..... Appellant

                               Through:   Mr. R. Santhanam with Mr. Arujun
                                          Prasad Sinha, Advs.
                               versus

       COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX NEW DELHI ..... Respondent

                               Through:   Ms. Adeeba Mujahid for Mr. Ajit
                                          Sharma, Advs


       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

VIPIN SANGHI, J. (ORAL)

1.     The aforenoted appeals are directed against the composite order dated
20.12.2018 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA Nos. 5811-
5814/Del/2011 in respect of assessment years from 2001-02 to 2004-05. In
all these appeals, common questions of law are sought to be urged with
respect to disallowance under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act. Since
issues involved in all the appeals are common, the same are being decided
by a common judgment.




ITA 519/2019 & connected matters                                      Page 2 of 17
2.     The Tribunal has dismissed the appeals preferred by the appellant and
upheld the disallowance of expenditure claimed by the appellant incurred
towards the educational expenses in respect of Ms. Esha Arya, who happens
to be the daughter of one of the Directors of the assessee company.

3.     In the assessment year 2001-02, the appellant claimed expenditure of
Rs. 29, 72,710/- on account of educational expenses of Ms. Esha Arya. The
said expenditure was disallowed on the ground that it was personal in nature.
On appeal, the learned CIT (A) dismissed the same. Similar expenditure
was claimed in subsequent years i.e. 2002-03, 2003-04 and 2004-05 and
they were also disallowed and additions of Rs. 16, 62,227/-, Rs. 21, 51,045/-
and Rs. 3, 27,837/- were made by the Assessing Officer in the said years.

4.     The assessee preferred appeals against the said orders, which too were
dismissed. In respect of all the four assessment years i.e. 2001-02 to 2004-
05, the assessee preferred appeals before the Tribunal. Vide a consolidated
order dated 27.02.2009, the Tribunal restored to the file of the Assessing
Officer, the issue of disallowance of educational expenses incurred by the
assesee, on behalf of Ms. Esha Arya, daughter of one of the Directors.

5.     The assessee was permitted to produce evidence in relation to the said
expenditure. The Assessing Officer granted sufficient opportunities to the
assessee and, thereafter, passed assessment orders sustaining the
disallowance mainly on the ground that the assessee did not produce the
original application form of Ms. Esha Arya for admission to the Boston
University, USA. The Assessing Officer also noted that the assessee did not
have any scheme for training of the employees, particularly for imparting


ITA 519/2019 & connected matters                                      Page 3 of 17
higher education. Further appeal before the CIT (A) met the same fate and
the CIT (A) upheld the disallowance of the expenditure claimed by the
appellant. The Tribunal, in the impugned order has extracted the findings
returned by the CIT (A). Since the same are pertinent, we reproduce the
same as hereunder:

       "6.2 I have carefully considered the submissions made on
       behalf of the appellant, the findings of the Assessing Officer and
       the facts on record. I have also perused the judgments relied
       upon by learned counsel of the assessee. I have also perused
       the directions given by the Hon'ble ITAT; New Delhi which
       were very specific. The appellant was given clear directions by
       the ITAT to furnish all the facts starting from making the
       application of admission till making the last payment.
       However, it is found that no evidence regarding application of
       admission could be produced by the assessee before the A.O.
       and also before the undersigned as per the directions of the
       ITAT It is also pertinent to point out that the appellant had not
       been able to furnish a copy of the application to the
       Educational Institution before ITAT as well. The evidences
       regarding payment of foreign exchange were produced but I
       am of the considered view that the same are not sufficient to
       prove the commercial expediency of the expenditure.
       6.3 It is difficult to comprehend that not even the print-out of
       the online application for admission is available with the
       appellant. It cannot be disputed that the process for admission
       of Miss Esha Arya at Boston University in USA for education
       must have started much earlier. She had to appear at GMAT
       for admission in Business Management and the GMAT scores
       obtained by her would have been considered by the University
       before offering admission to her. The letter of admission
       would have also been issued by Boston University. At the time
       of interview for visa, some evidence in support of her
       admission in Boston University would have also been
       produced by Miss Esha Arya before the USA embassy







ITA 519/2019 & connected matters                                      Page 4 of 17
       authorities. However, the appellant company has not been
       able to produce/adduce any direct or circumstantial evidence
       in order to prove that as to when she got the admission in
       Boston University.
       6.4 It is also observed that the assessee has not adopted any
       procedure for selection of the employees for higher education
       in Foreign University. Miss Esha Arya was sent for the higher
       education not on the basis of requirement of the company or
       her ability but only because of her relationship with the one of
       the directors of the company. The decisive test in a situation
       like this is to ask a question whether an assessee will incur
       expenditure of the type being claimed in case of appellant as
       business expenditure in case of any employee. If this test is
       applied, it would be clear that huge expenditure on foreign
       education is incurred because she is daughter of the Director
       of the appellant company and such expenditure has no
       business connection. It is thus apparent that only consideration
       for incurring huge expenditure on Miss Esha Arya is because
       she being the daughter of one of the directors of the appellant-
       company. Thus, the only logical conclusion which could be
       drawn on these facts of the case is that there is no nexus
       between education expenses incurred abroad for Miss Esha
       Arya and the business of the appellant-company. In any case,
       such expenditure on facts cannot be said to be laid out or
       expbiTdeTwholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. In
       view of the foregoing discussion and for the reasons given by
       the AO, I am of the considered view that the expenditure on
       education of Miss Esha Arya is in nature of personal
       expenditure of the Director of the appellant company, which
       cannot be stated to be laid out or expended wholly and
       exclusively for the purposes of business of the appellant
       company. As such, these expenses cannot be considered as
       allowable expenses under section 37(1) of the Act. Therefore,
       disallowance made by the AO on account of the educational
       expenses incurred by the appellant on behalf of Ms Esha Arya,
       is hereby upheld. As a result, Ground of appeal No. 4 for the



ITA 519/2019 & connected matters                                    Page 5 of 17
       assessment years 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04 & 2004-05 is
       dismissed." (sic)
                                                   (emphasis supplied)
6.     Before the Tribunal, the assessee produced the paper book containing
224 pages to justify its claim of deductable expenses. The Tribunal has not
found merit in the appeal and dismissed the same. The discussion found in
the impugned order reads as follows:

       "12. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the
       relevant material on record including the paper book submitted
       by the assessee. In the instant appeals, the common issue
       involved is whether the expenses on education of Ms Esha Arya,
       (who, happened to be daughter of one of the directors of the
       assessee company) at the Boston University, which included
       college fee, boarding, travelling from India and back and other
       incidental expenses, have been incurred wholly and exclusively
       for the purpose of the business and allowable under section
       37(1) of the Act or not. The assessee is before us in second
       round of proceedings. In first round, the Tribunal, questioned
       the assessee about the fact whether at the time of making
       application for admission to the MBA program, the company
       had sponsored Ms. Esha Arya or she had applied
       independently. The assessee was not able to furnish a copy of
       application for admission to the Boston University. In view of
       failure to substantiate the fact of a sponsoring by the assessee
       company, the Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the
       AO directing the assessee to file all evidences starting from
       the making of the application till making the last payment, for
       determining whether the expenditure was incurred by the
       directors of the company out of love and affection towards
       their daughter or it was an expenditure incurred in the course
       of the business of the assessee.
       13. As far as requirement of the filing of the application form,
       the Assessing Officer has noted that no original application was


ITA 519/2019 & connected matters                                    Page 6 of 17
       filed by the assessee before him. The Ld. CIT(A) has also noted
       that no copy of application for admission was filed by the
       assessee before him. He has also noted that no other evidence
       have been filed related to documents submitted during visa
       interview before the USA Embassy Authorities. Thus, it is
       evident that the assessee has not complied with the direction
       of the Tribunal issued at the time of remanding the matter
       back to the Assessing Officer. Before us also, only
       information sheet/medical & physical history of the student
       has been filed and copy of admission form has not been filed.
       14. We find that the assessee has accepted the decision of the
       Tribunal in first round of proceedings and no appeal has been
       filed against the said direction of the Tribunal. In such
       circumstances, not complying with the direction of the
       Tribunal, itself is sufficient to dismiss the appeal of the
       assessee.
       15. In addition to the above, the documents filed in relation to
       the remitting of foreign exchange through M/s Thomas Cook
       private limited, nowhere demonstrate that payments were
       made as part of the sponsoring agency for furtherance of the
       business interest of the assessee company. We also find that
       the assessee has failed to justify its claim of appointment of
       Ms Esha Arya as a whole time director of the company, barely
       at the age of 18 years without any relevant educational
       qualification or experience.
       16. We also note that in assessment year 2003-04, the Assessing
       Officer has disallowed the salary of Rs.33,337/- paid by the
       assessee to Ms. Esha arya observing as under:
               "7.In respect of assessment year 2003-04, the
               appellant has also raised Grounds of appeal No.5
               which relates to the disallowance of the salary to
               the extent of Rs.33,337/- paid by the appellant to
               Ms. Esha Arya. This matter was also restored to
               the file of the AO for fresh adjudication after
               ascertaining whether any service was rendered by


ITA 519/2019 & connected matters                                    Page 7 of 17
               her to the assessee company in this year for during
               her vocation period. In this regard, the copy of the
               extracts of the minutes of the meeting of the Board
               of Directors dated 06.05.2002 was furnished
               before the A.O. as well as before the undersigned.
               The above-quoted letter dated 06.05.2002 does not
               indicate anything about the expenses in question
               and its justification from the point of commercial
               expediency. In order to claim a deduction on
               account of expenditure for purposes of business
               the onus lies on the assessee to prove that the
               expenditure was incurred for the purposes of
               business and was not of a capital nature. If it is to
               be allowed, the onus is on the assessee to prove the
               amount of expenditure which can be allowed. In
               order that an expenditure should qualify for
               deduction as contemplated by section 37(1), one of
               the requirements of the provision is that the
               expenditure must have been laid out wholly and
               exclusively for the purpose of the business. It
               cannot be disputed that before an assessee can
               become entitled to an allowance under that
               provision, he must satisfy the Department of the
               purpose for which the amount is spent. It is true
               that the taxing authorities are not entitled to go
               into the reasonableness of the expenses, but they
               are certainly entitled to be satisfied as to the
               commercial necessity of expending that amount.
               The question will always be as to the nature of the
               relation between the expenditure and the business,
               whether the benefit is remote or near, prospective
               or immediate, imaginary or real and so forth. The
               capacity in which the assessee spends will also be
               relevant. In the instant case, the assessee did not
               furnish any material to the Assessing Officer to
               arrive at the conclusion favoring the assessee. The
               A.O. therefore, exercised his judgment and



ITA 519/2019 & connected matters                                       Page 8 of 17
               discretion which cannot be said to be arbitrary or
               unreasonable. As a result, the addition of Rs.
               33,337/- on account of salary paid by the appellant
               to Ms Esha Arya is confirmed and ground No.5 is
               dismissed."
       17. We find that the assessee has not taken any ground of
       appeal against the above finding of the Ld. CIT(A), and, thus,
       the fact that no services were rendered by her even during
       vocation period, become final.
       18. We find that in the case of RAS information technology (p)
       Ltd., the Hon'ble High Court in para 6 of the decision has
       noted that during the course of pursuing his postgraduate
       course at USA, the son of the director of the company updated
       about the latest trends and developments in the field of
       consultancy and was also sending key input in the form of
       articles, research papers etc to enable the company to keep
       itself updated of the technical know-how and knowledge.
       Whereas, in the instant case before us, even the claim of
       services during the vocation period has not been found to be
       true. Thus, the ratio of the above decision cannot be applied
       over the facts of the instant case. In the case of Mallige Medical
       Centre Private Limited (supra), the daughter of the managing
       director acquired degree in medicine and she was already
       employed with company as full-time employee. In the instant
       case, the daughter of the director barely attained the age of 18
       years and completed schooling. Thus, facts of the instant case
       are distinguishable from the facts of the cases relied upon by
       the assessee."
                                                    (emphasis supplied)


7.     The submission of Mr. Santhanam, learned counsel for the appellant,
is that the Tribunal heard the submissions on 18.12.2018 and pronounced the
impugned order on 20.12.2018 without considering the compilation of



ITA 519/2019 & connected matters                                      Page 9 of 17
documents submitted by the appellant. He further submits that all the
conditions of Section 37 of the Income Tax Act were satisfied inasmuch as,
the nature of the expenditure was not capital in nature; it was not personal
expenses of the assessee company; it was expended wholly and exclusively
for the purpose of business of the company.

8.     He submits that merely because Ms. Esha Arya was the daughter of
one of the Directors of the company, the expenses could not be disallowed.
He further submits that before proceeding for the course, Ms. Esha Arya was
inducted as a Director and employee of the company and she even entered
into a bond with the company ­ undertaking to serve the company upon her
return. He further submits that, as a matter of fact, after her return, she did
serve the company and changed the fortunes of the company. The education
obtained by Ms. Esha Arya was pertinent and relevant to the business of the
company since she had gone abroad to obtain the degree of M.B.A from
Boston University, USA.

9.     In support of his submission, Mr. Santhanam has placed reliance on
the decision of this Court in Kostub Investment Ltd. v. Commissioner of
Income Tax, (2014) 365 ITR 436 (Delhi). In this case, an employee of the
company, who had already served for about a year, had been sent to obtain
higher education. This Court distinguished Kostub Investment Ltd. (supra)
from Natco Exports Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT, (2012) 345 ITR 188 (Delhi), and held
in favour of the assessee that the said expenditure was allowable.

10.    Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent, firstly, submits that no
question of law arises for consideration since the entire dispute is completely


ITA 519/2019 & connected matters                                     Page 10 of 17
factual. She submits that there are concurrent findings of fact returned by
the Assessing Officer, CIT (A) and the Tribunal after examining the
materials produced by the appellant. The onus to justify the deduction of the
expenditure incurred by the appellant was entirely upon the appellant, and
the appellant had failed to discharge the same. She submits that an issue of
appreciation of evidence does not raise a question of law, particularly when
concurrent findings of facts have been returned and no perversity is pointed
out in the finding concurrently returned by the authorities and the tribunal.
She points out that the two Directors of the company, who participated in
the Board Meeting which resolved to send Ms. Esha Arya to Boston
University to undertake the MBA Course were her parents, and none else.
She also points out that the nature of the bond executed by Ms. Esha Arya is
also questionable inasmuch as, she was only required to serve the company,
upon her return, for a period of one year, failing which she was subjected to
penalty of Rs. 50,000/-, which too could be waived.

11.    She points out that the expenditure incurred by the appellant company
on the foreign education of Ms. Esha Arya was to the tune of Rs. 70 lakhs
(approx.), spread over a period of four years. She also points out that the
assessee company was running into losses when it purportedly resolved to
send Ms. Esha Arya for her higher education to Boston University for the
MBA course.

12.    We have gone through the facts of the case and have also examined
the judgments cited by the Appellant as well as the Revenue. The assessee
has claimed expenditure in respect of educational expenses incurred by the



ITA 519/2019 & connected matters                                   Page 11 of 17
assessee for overseas education of Ms. Esha Arya, daughter of one of the
directors of the assessee company.          The expenses were disallowed
concurrently by all the authorities- the A.O, CIT (A) as well as the Income
Tax Appellate Tribunal.

13.    Section 37 of the Act postulates that expenditure which is wholly and
exclusively incurred for the purpose of business can be allowed as a
deduction in taxable business income. The onus is on the assessee to show
and establish that the aforesaid twin conditions are satisfied.        Personal
expenses cannot be claimed as a deduction under Section 37 of the Act.

14.    The question as to whether, in a given case, the expenditure claimed is
allowable or not has to be examined in the context of the facts and
circumstances of the case, which would entail analysis of the business
activities of the assessee and its general policy to incur such expenses for the
purpose of the business wholly and exclusively; the nature of education,
training, etc. would need examination. It would also need examination
whether the expense saddled on the assessee is, in fact, a personal expense
of the owner/partner/Director of the assessee who may be controlling the
affairs of the assessee, and is sought to be passed off as an allowable
expenditure, only to reduce the tax liability of the assessee and that of the
owner/partner/share holder-Director of the assessee. All these factors are
necessarily required to be examined so as to ascertain if there is a nexus
between the expenditure claimed and the business of the assessee, whether it
was wholly and exclusively expended for the purpose of business of the
assessee. This requires the assessee to produce reliable evidence before the



ITA 519/2019 & connected matters                                     Page 12 of 17
Assessing Officer. The evaluation of the claim of expenditure has to be
considered on the basis of the material on record, and there cannot be any
straight jacket formula for such determination. Each case would turn on its
own facts, and the decision would vest on the fact whether the assessee has
discharged the burden of showing that the expenditure was wholly and
exclusively for the purpose of the business of the assessee under Section
37(1), to include the conclusion that the expenditure, which is of personal
nature, is not claimed as business expenditure. In the present case, the
assessee has failed to produce material and documents to support that the
expenditure was incurred for the purpose of the business of the assessee. The
findings of the AO, affirmed in the successive appeals are all factual. The
assessee has not been able to show as to how the findings are perverse or
contrary to the evidence and material on record.






15.    It is also to be noted that the Appellant is a Company engaged in the
business of manufacturing of Sheet Metal components and LPG Cylinders.
It has claimed that it incurred expenses for education of the newly inducted
Director- 18 year old daughter of at least one of the existing Directors, for
pursuing MBA programme in USA. The Board of Directors comprised of
Sh. S.K. Arya and Smt. Neelam Arya (Husband & Wife) and Ms. Esha Arya
(their daughter) was inducted in the business as a Director at the start of the
previous year in respect of assessment year 2001-2002, when she was barely
18 years of age.

16.    In Kostub Investment Ltd (supra), the crucial factor that prevailed
upon the Court is noticeable in the following words, "But that it has chosen



ITA 519/2019 & connected matters                                    Page 13 of 17
to fund the higher education of one of its Director's sons in a field intimately
connected with its business is a crucial factor that the Court cannot ignore ."
The assessee in that case was in the business of investments and securities
and it claimed expenditure on account of education and training under the
head `Education and Training Expenses' relating to higher education of one
of the sons of its Director for pursuing the Course of MBA. This is not the
situation in the present case. Masters of Business Administration is a course
which is general in nature and is not any specialized training or degree in
relation to the business activity of the assessee.

17.    There is yet another fact which distinguishes the present case from
Kostub Investment Ltd (supra) and renders it inapplicable. In the said case,
the person whose education was sought to be funded was already on the
Board of Directors of the assessee's Company and he was working for a
salary. Since, the Company was in need of a Manager who could study the
methods of investment market, the Board of Directors took a conscious
decision to send the son of one of its Directors to pursue the course and to
incur the expenditure for his study and training.

18.    In the present case, Ms.      Esha Arya, the daughter of one of the
Directors was barely 18 years of age without any relevant education,
qualification or experience when she was inducted as a whole time Director
of the Company. The agreement with the company wherein she undertook to
remain in the employment of the assessee company for a period of not less
than one year from the date of completion of higher education/training was
executed on 20.03.2000, the date when she was inducted as the Director of



ITA 519/2019 & connected matters                                     Page 14 of 17
the Company. The terms of the said agreement also defy logic. It is highly
improbable that a Company which would incur expenditure to the tune of
Rs. 70 lacs approximate on overseas education, agreed to have Ms. Esha
Arya make a commitment to work for the Company only for a period of one
year and, in the event she were to leave the Company before the expiry of
the said period, she was required to pay only Rs. 50,000/- as default money,
which too could also be waived off at the discretion of the Director of the
assessee. When these contradictions were pointed out, the Assessee
produced the supplemental agreement dated 01.11.2000 wherein she agreed
to serve the Company for not less than two years and in the event of default,
reimburse 50% of the expenditure incurred on higher education. These facts
cannot be ignored and one can easily infer that the expenses were not
incurred wholly and exclusively for the business of the Company.
Significantly, when the learned ITAT restored the matter to the file of the
AO, in the first round of a challenge, the assessee, despite opportunity failed
to produce the evidence that would justify the expenditure, as noted in the
impugned order. The assessee could not produce any evidence to show that
the assessee company had sponsored the application of Ms. Esha Arya from
the beginning. The Assessing Officer thus concluded that there was no
nexus between the higher education expense of Ms. Esha Arya and the
business of the assessee and accordingly disallowed the entire sum holding
that it was not an expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the
purpose of business. While it may also be true that it is for the assessee to
decide as to who should be employed, and what should be the terms of the
Contract, however, it is for the Income Tax Officer to determine whether



ITA 519/2019 & connected matters                                    Page 15 of 17
there is indeed a nexus between the expense and the business of the
Company and for that, the enquiry conducted by him cannot be faulted with.
The present case is similar to Natco Exports Pvt. Ltd. (supra).              The
distinction sought to be drawn by Mr. Santhanam on the ground that in the
present case Ms. Esha Arya had executed a bond with the assessee Company
is rejected because the bond is itself farcical and that is not the only relevant
factor. In Natco Exports Pvt. Ltd. (supra), this Court observed:-

       "5. The aforesaid findings are findings of fact and have been
       upheld by the Tribunal. We may also note that in the present
       case Ruchika Grover had not executed any bond that she would
       work for the appellant company after she completes the course
       and on failure shall return the money spent. The findings of the
       Tribunal clearly show that Ruchika Grover, who had completed
       her graduation in the year 2005 and immediately thereafter
       applied for further studies in University of Nottingham in
       United Kingdom. It is a case where she continued with her
       studies. The said application for undertaking the studies abroad
       was made even prior to her completing the course. The alleged
       board resolution has rightly not been relied upon as it was not
       relied and filed before the Assessing Officer. Considering the
       facts and circumstances of the case, the aforesaid expenditure,
       it has been held, cannot be regarded as wholly and exclusively
       incurred for the purpose of business. The findings are findings
       of fact. The findings are not perverse."



19.    The cumulative impact of all the events and circumstances noted in
the impugned order, has led the Income Tax Authorities to hold that the
deduction could not have been allowed. The reasons for disallowance are
germane and relevant and cannot be ignored. Apparently, this was an
attempt on the part of the assessee to avoid tax liability.


ITA 519/2019 & connected matters                                      Page 16 of 17
20.    For the foregoing reasons, the Court is of the opinion that the
concurrent findings of fact arrived at by all the lower Appellate Authorities
do not call for any interference and no question of law arises for
consideration.

21.    Accordingly, all the present appeals are dismissed.

                                                         VIPIN SANGHI, J



                                                    SANJEEV NARULA, J

SEPTEMBER 30, 2019




ITA 519/2019 & connected matters                                   Page 17 of 17

Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2019 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
SEO Services SEO LLC e-boost Search Engine Optimization Services Internet Marketing Services Website Placement Services On-site Webs

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions