Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. The Ld. DR has contended that assessee had incurred whose expenditure in London Office as business expenditure for the year relevant to assessment year 2004-05 to 2007-08, however, it was noticed by the then AO that such expenditure was incurred by two sons namely Surabh Khetan and brother Manan Khetan for pursuing their education (A/o ITA No. 638 and 653/Jodh/2007) Asst. Year: 2004-05 in UK. The nature of the above expenses clearly indicates that same have been incurred for education for children and have nothing to do for the business expenditure of the assessee company. The Ld. DR contended that the assessee company has shown very normal income decreasing export turnover as well. He argued that assessment year 2004-05 the Hon'ble ITAT has allowed such expenses as business expenditure without appreciating the facts of the case and findings of the AO. He pleaded that the appeal on this issue may be recalled per contra. The ld. DR for the Assessee has supported the tribunal order and contended that tribunal has passed a detailed and well reasoned order after considering all the facts available on the record and the submissions made by both the parties on merits of the case.