Latest Expert Exchange Queries
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) | Service Tax | Sales Tax | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Indirect Tax | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing
 
 
 
 
Popular Search: TDS :: articles on VAT and GST in India :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: empanelment :: list of goods taxed at 4% :: form 3cd :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: cpt :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: VAT RATES :: VAT Audit :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: due date for vat payment :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT
 
 
From the Courts »
 The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-4 Vs. Inter Globe Technology Quotient Pvt. Ltd.
 Akum Drugs And Pharmaceuticals Limited Through: Director Shri. Sanjeev Jain Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1) & Anr.
 Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax Central-2 New Delhi Vs. Meeta Gutgutia Prop. M/s Ferns „n? Petals
 Prabhatam Investment Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi)
 CIT vs. Laxman Industrial Resources Pvt.Ltd (Delhi High Court)
  State Of Jharkhand vs. Lalu Prasad Yadav (Supreme Court)
 CIT vs. Krishan K. Aggarwal (Supreme Court)
 Ambuja Cements Ltd. Vs. Commissioner, Service Tax Commissionerate, Delhi
 Director Of Income Tax (Exemptions) Vs. Vishwa Hindu Parishad
 ITAT Proposes Important Changes To Tribunal Rules
 Meherjee Cassinath Holdings Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)

Dimples Cine Advertising Pvt.Ltd., Parke Avenue, 16th/29th Road, Junction, Near Pali Market, Bandra (W), Mumbai-400050 Vs. Income Tax Officer, 9(1)(3), Mumbai.
August, 19th 2015
                   ,   "" 
     IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "D" BENCH, MUMBAI

         BEFORE S/SHRI B.R.BASKARAN,AM AND LALIT KUMAR, JM


                  ./I.T.A. No.7373/Mum/2010
                (   / Assessment Year :2006-07)


 Dimples Cine Advertising           / Income Tax Officer, 9(1)(3),
 Pvt.Ltd.,                              Mumbai.
                                    Vs.
 Parke Avenue, 16th/29th Road,
 Junction, Near Pali Market,
 Bandra (W),
 Mumbai-400050
        ( /Appellant)               ..    (    / Respondent)


          . /   . /PAN/GIR No. :AAACD3788P



            / Appellant by                None
              /Rspondent by               Ms.Anu Aggarwal


            / Date of Hearing                 : 18.8.2015
            /Date of Pronouncement: 18.8.2015

                                   / O R D E R

PER B.R.BASKARAN, AM:

       The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 02-
08-2010 passed by Ld CIT(A)-19, Mumbai and it relates to the assessment
year 2007-08.
2.     None appeared on behalf of the assessee. From the order sheet
noting, we notice that the assessee has refused to receive the notice sent
by the Registry.   Hence, we proceed to dispose of the appeal ex-parte
without the presence of the assessee.
                                      2                 I T A N o . 7 3 7 3 / Mu m / 2 0 1 0



3.    We heard Ld D.R and perused the record. Following two issues are
urged before us by the assessee:-
(a) Disallowance made u/s 40A(2)(b) of the Act. (b) Disallowance of rent . The facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of leasing, finance, cinema advertising and manpower supply services. On a perusal of the Profit and Loss account of the assessee, the AO noticed that the business receipts of the assessee has fallen down by 20%, where as the expenses claimed by the assessee has increased four times. On a further closer examination of the expenses, the AO noticed that the salary paid to the directors has gone up from Rs.60,000/- to Rs.10,20,000/-, i.e., in the immediately preceding year the assessee had paid a salary of Rs.60,000/- to its director, whereas during the year under consideration, the salary has been paid to the tune of Rs.10,20,000/-. Hence the AO considered that the salary payment made to the directors is excessive and unreasonable. Accordingly invoked the provisions of sec. 40A(2)(a) of the Act and restricted the deduction towards salary paid to the directors to Rs.2,40,000/- and disallowed the balance amount of Rs.7,80,000/-. The assessee had claimed rent expenditure of Rs.1,80,000/-. The AO noticed that the assessee's sister concern is also operating from the same premises and accordingly restricted the deduction towards rent at Rs.90,000/- and accordingly disallowed the balance amount of Rs.90,000/-. 4. In the appellate proceedings, the ld CIT(A) confirmed both the disallowances cited above and hence the assessee has filed this appeal before us. 5. The Ld D.R submitted that the assessee has not substantiated the salary payment of Rs.10,20,000/- made to the directors, particularly when the business of the assessee is going down. Accordingly, the ld D.R 3 I T A N o . 7 3 7 3 / Mu m / 2 0 1 0 submitted that the assessing officer was reasonable in restricting the deduction of salary paid to the directors at Rs.2,40,000/-. With regard to the rent expenditure also, the ld D.R submitted that the same premises was used by two concerns and hence the AO was justified in disallowing 50% of the rent claim. 6. On consideration of the Ld D.R's submissions and the facts prevailing in the case, we do not find any infirmity in the decision of Ld CIT(A) in confirming both the disallowances referred above. Before us, no material was placed by the assessee in order to contradict the views taken by the tax authorities. Accordingly, we have no other option but to confirm the order passed by Ld CIT(A). 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Pronounced accordingly on 18th August 2015. 18th August, 2015 Sd sd (LALIT KUMAR) ( B.R. BASKARAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai: 18th Aug, 2015. . ../ SRL , Sr. PS /Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. / The Appellant 2. / The Respondent. 3. () / The CIT(A)- concerned 4. / CIT concerned 5. , , / DR, ITAT, Mumbai concerned 6. / Guard file. / BY ORDER, True copy (Asstt. Registrar) , /ITAT, Mumbai
 
 
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2017 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Multi-level Marketing MLM India Affiliate Marketing Affiliate Marketing Software MLM Software MLM Solutions Multi level marketing solutions MLM Servi

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