sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
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
Latest Expert Exchange
From the Courts »
  Oriental Bank Of Commerce Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax
  Suresh M. Jamkhindikar vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court)
  Union of India vs. Pirthwi Singh (Supreme Court)
 Cromption Greaves Limited vs. CIT (ITAT Mumbai)
 Director Of Income Tax Vs. M/s. Modiluft Ltd.
 Director Of Income Tax Vs. M/s. Royal Airways Ltd.
 Lally Motors India (P.) Ltd vs. PCIT (ITAT Amritsar)
  Mehsana District Co-operative vs. DCIT (Gujarat High Court)
 Suresh M. Jamkhindikar vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court)
 Union of India vs. Pirthwi Singh (Supreme Court)
  In Re Hiten Ramanlal Mahimtura (ITAT Mumbai)

ACIT Cir. 27(1),New Delhi. Vs. M/s Richa & Co., 2/2, WHS, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi-110015.
February, 15th 2013
                 DELHI BENCH "F" NEW DELHI

                 ITA No. 6027/Del/2012
                 Asstt. Yr. 2008-09
ACIT Cir. 27(1),              Vs. M/s Richa & Co.,
New Delhi.                          2/2, WHS, Kirti Nagar,
                                    New Delhi-110015.
                                    PAN: AAAFR0114L
( Appellant )                       ( Respondent )

            Appellant by       :      Shri Bhim Singh Sr. DR
            Respondent by      :      Shri K. V.V.S.R. Krishna CA



      This is Revenue's appeal against CIT(A)'s order dated 27-9-2012
relating to A.Y. 2008-09. Following grounds are raised.

      "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.
      CIT(A) erred in law as well as on facts by

      1.    In deleting the addition of Rs. 9,17,254/- made by the AO
      on account of foreign exchange of partners out of travelling

      2.    In deleting the addition of Rs. 5,00,000/- made by the AO
      on account of Sampling expenses.

      3.    In deleting the addition of Rs. 3,30,296/- made by the AO
      on account of telephone expenses.

      4.    In deleting the addition of Rs. 4,13,279/- made by the AO
      on account of car, depreciation etc.
                                     2                         ITA no. 6027/Del/12
                                                                       Richa & Co.

      5.    Whether ld. CIT(A) is justified in deleting the additions
      made by the AO on the ground that AO ha snot rejected the
      books of accounts and assessee has paid FBT.

2.    Ld. DR relied on the order of assessing officer and contends that the

assessing officer observed that the assessee had spent disproportionate

amount on foreign trips of partners as compared to employees. Besides, on

random basis, the remaining expenditures were rightly disallowed.

3.    Ld. Counsel for the assessee on the other hand vehemently argues that

assessing officer has himself accepted that foreign travels of partners were

for business purposes. When there is no discrepancy or deficiency in the

books of a/cs, method of accounting, supporting vouchers, in these

circumstances, there is no justification for ad hoc disallowance out of

business expenses on comparison basis. Not a single item of expenditure

has been objectively questioned and on surmises the additions have been

made. FBT return filed by the assessee has been accepted in toto. Thus in the

absence of any mistake what-so-ever, the additions have been rightly deleted

by CIT(A) on pertinent observations that same have been disallowed by

assessing officer on general reasons and guess work.

4.    We have heard rival contentions and gone through the entire material

available on record. It emerges from the record that no specific discrepancy

has been pointed out in assessee's books of a/c. Ad hoc disallowance has
                                      3                        ITA no. 6027/Del/12
                                                                       Richa & Co.

been made purely on guess work and surmises. All other details of the

assessee, accounts and income including FBT have been accepted. In these

facts and circumstances, we see no infirmity in the order of CIT(A), which is


5.    In the result, revenue's appeal is dismissed.

Order pronounced in open court on 13-02-2013.

      Sd/-                                                   Sd/-
( B.C. MEENA )                                        ( R.P. TOLANI )
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER                                     JUDICIAL MEMBER
Dated: 13-02-2013.
Copy to :
   1. Assessee
   2. AO
   3. CIT
   4. CIT(A)
   5. DR
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2018 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Bath SEO Company Birmingham SEO Company Bradford SEO Company Brighton and Hove SEO Company Bristol SEO Company Cambridge SEO Company Canterbury SEO Company Carlisle SEO Company Chester SEO Company Chichester SEO Company Coventry SEO Compan

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