Case Law Details
Sh. Naresh Kumar Luhadia Vs DCIT (ITAT Jaipur)
Full picture of how travelling expenses and conveyance expenses were being incurred by assessee was brought to the notice of AO in writing but AO, instead of appreciating facts and circumstances of the case, just made simple observation that assessee’s reply was very general in nature. There was no finding that impugned expenses were not incurred for the purposes of business. It was a clear case of ad hoc disallowance which could not be sustained.
FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGMENT
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT(A)-3, Jaipur dated 13.11.2017 for Assessment Year 2012-13 where in the following grounds of appeal have been taken:
“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and law, the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-3, erred in confirming 10% disallowance from traveling expenses and conveyance expenses (1.e. 10% of 751121/- and 10% of 104856/-) and there by confirming addition of Rs. 85598/- to the total income of the assessee.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
2018] 99 taxmann.com 284 (SC)/[2018] 259 Taxman 370 (SC)
IT : Where High Court upheld order of Tribunal setting aside adhocdisallowance of expenses claimed on ground that assessee’s books of account were not rejected, SLP filed against said order was to be dismissed