Tally for CAs in Industry Silver Edition (Single User) Tally Renewal (Auditor Edition) Need Tally for Clients? (Tie-up with us!!!)
Open DEMAT Account with in 24 Hrs and start investing now!
From the Courts »
Open DEMAT Account in 24 hrs
 Engineering Analysis Centre Of Excellence Private Limited vs. CIT (Supreme Court)
 M/s. M.L. Singhi & Associates (P) Ltd., Brahmaputra House, A-7, NH-8, Mahipalpur Crossing, Mahipalpur, New Delhi Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-17, New Delhi.
 Gurudwara Kalgidhar Singh Sabha, R.K. Puram, Sector-6, Delhi Vs. The Income Tax Officer (Exemptions), Ward-1(2), New Delhi.
 Shri Bishan Sharup Gupta, New Delhi Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 45 (4), New Delhi.
 M/s Scan Holdings Pvt. Ltd., F-4, Shopping Complex, A Block, Meera Bagh, West Delhi Vs. ACIT, Circle-22(2), New Delhi
 Shri Kunwar Tuli, 41A, A-1A, Chanakya Place, Uttam Nagar, Vs. ITO, Ward-43(4), New Delhi
 M/s. G4S Secure Solutions (India) Pvt. Ltd., C-16, Community Centre, Janakpuri, Behind Janak Cinema, New Delhi Vs. Addl. CIT, Special Range-4, New Delhi
 Sh. Madhu Sudan Yadav, C/o Yadav Book Depot. Moti Chowk, Rewari, (Haryana) Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Rewari.
 Sh. Madhu Sudan Yadav, C/o Yadav Book Depot. Moti Chowk, Rewari, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Rewari.
 M/s. Transcend Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., S2 Level, Upper Ground Floor, Block-F, International Trade Tower, Nehru Place, New Delhi Vs. The ACIT, Circle-16(1), Central Revenue Building, New Delhi
 Rising Star Khilte Chehre 7/10, Pocket B Phase-3, Ashok Vihar, New Delhi Vs. CIT (Exemption) New Delhi
 Smt. Harminder Kaur, C/o- Sunil Arora & Associates, A-1/118, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-36(4), New Delhi
 M/s. VLCC Health Care (P) Ltd. M 14, Commercial Complex Greater Kailash Part II, New Delhi Vs. Addl.CIT, Range 17, New Delhi.
 DCIT, Central Circle-12, New Delhi Vs. Tushar Kumar, G-5, GTM House, Pushkar Enclave, Outer Ring Road, Pachim Vihar, New Delhi
 M/s GTM Builders & Promoters Pvt. Ltd., G-5, Pushkar Enclave, Outer Ring Road, Pachim Vihar, New Delhi Vs. ACIT, Central Circle-12, New Delhi

M/s Scan Holdings Pvt. Ltd., F-4, Shopping Complex, A Block, Meera Bagh, West Delhi Vs. ACIT, Circle-22(2), New Delhi
February, 18th 2021

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH ‘G’, NEW DELHI

Before Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member
Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member

(Through Video Conferencing)

ITA No. 6168/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17

M/s Scan Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Vs ACIT,

F-4, Shopping Complex, A Block, Circle-22(2),

Meera Bagh, West Delhi, New Delhi-110001

New Delhi-110087

(APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT)

PAN No. AABCS0852N

Assessee by : Sh. S. Krishnan, Adv.
Revenue by : Sh. Prakash Dubey, Sr. DR

Date of Hearing: 16.02.2021 Date of Pronouncement: 18.02.2021

ORDER

 

Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member:

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against
the order of the ld. CIT(A)-8, New Delhi dated 18.06.2019.

2. Regarding the disallowance u/s 14A, the assessee at the
outset argued that this is not a parameter to be examined in
the case of limited scrutiny pertaining to the assessee as per
the notice issued dated 18.07.2017. There was no proof on
record that the limited scrutiny case has been converted into
full scrutiny on obtaining the approval of the ld. PCIT as per the
instant instructions issued by the CBDT.
2 ITA No. 6168/Del/2019

Scan Holdings Pvt. Ltd.

3. Since, the disallowance u/s 14A determined by the ld. CIT

(A) of Rs.68,137/- is without jurisdiction mandated, we hereby

delete the addition made by the AO.

4. With regard to the disallowance on account of car running
expenses and entertainment expenses (additional grounds). The
ld. AR argued that there cannot be any expenses of personal
element in case of the company. He argued that the
disallowance of expenses of Rs.1,53,051/- on account of car
running and Rs.24,657/- on account of entertainment expenses
cannot be treated as personal expenses. Regarding the
entertainment expenses being a factual issue of disallowance of
Rs.24,657/- forgone by the assessee earlier, owing to any valid
reasons, we decline to admit this ground at this juncture.

5. Having gone through the record, we find that revenue has
not brought anything to prove the personal nature of the
expenses with regard to car maintenance expenses except
disallowing the same on adhoc basis. Hence, the action of the
revenue cannot be supported. In the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case, the appeal of the assessee on this
ground is allowed.

6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.
Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 18/02/2021.

Sd/- Sd/-

(Suchitra Kamble) (Dr. B. R. R. Kumar)
Judicial Member Accountant Member

Dated: 18/02/2021

*Subodh*

Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2021 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Ritz Consulting