Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.51 seconds)
Documents citing Indian Delco (P.) Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 30 March, 1996

Income Tax Officer vs Mokul Finance (P) Ltd. on 13 July, 2007

4. Smt. Iyer, learned Departmental Representative, submits that the CIT(A) was influenced by the factors which were not relevant to decide whether or not the expenses in question should be allowed as deduction in computation of business income. She submits that genuineness of expenditure, on which emphasis is placed by the CIT(A), is wholly irrelevant in coming to the conclusion that the expenditure is to be allowed even as there is no business activity during the relevant previous year. It is also pointed out that reasonableness of expenditure also has no bearing on this issue. It is further pointed out that the reasoning of the CIT(A) is vague and lacks specific and cogent reasons, germane to the context, for deleting the disallowance of expenses. Learned Departmental Representative relies upon Tribunals' order in the case of Adasoft (India) (P) Ltd. v. Dy. CTT (2006) 9 SOT 31 (Del) in support of the disallowance of expenditure when business is not in existence. She relies upon the order of the AO, justifies the same, and urges us to restore the order of the AO. Dr. Gupta, learned Counsel for the assessee, supports and justifies the order of the CIT(A). Dr. Gupta submits that the assessee is a company and the expenditure incurred by the assessee are minimal expenditure just to keep the company afloat.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 4 - Cited by 28 - Full Document
1