Full Text
22.
PR.COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX-6 Appellant
Through: Mr. Kamal Sawhney, Senior Standing counsel.
PR.COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX-6 Appellant
Through: Mr. Kamal Sawhney, Senior Standing counsel.
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
10.08.2015 CM No.14089 of2015(for exemption)
1.Exemption allowed subjectto alljust exceptions.
ITA Nos.553& 554of2015 Page1 of3 2015:DHC:11381-DB
2.The application is disposed of.
ITA No.553/2015 & 554/2015 3.These two appeals by the Revenue under Section 260A oftheIncome Tax
Act, 1961 ('Act')pertain to the same Assessment Year('AY')2007-08 and are directed against the common order passed by the Income Tax Appellate
Tribunal('ITAT')in ITA No.553/2015 and 554/2015.
4.In ITA No.553 of2015,two issues have been projected by the Revenue.
The first is that the ITAT was not justified in disallowing depreciation of
Rs.30,09,738 out of legal and professional fees as the payments were excessive/unreasonable.
ORDER
5. The Court is ofthe view that the question whether legal and professional fees could be said to be reasonable would depend on the facts ofeach case. The ITAT has in its impugned judgment pointed out that the Assessing Officer('AO')failed to examine what could be the fair market value ofsaid services and wasin no position therefore to conclude thatthe payments were either excessive or unreasonable. The Court finds no legal infirmity in the decision ofthe ITAT.It accordingly declines to frame a question oflaw. ITA Nos.553& 554of2015 Page2of[3]
6. The second issue projected in ITA No.553 of2015 is whether the ITAT was justified in not upholding disallowance ofRs.[1] lakh for foreign travel expenditure. The amount involved being insubstantial and further since the finding on the issue is purely factual,the Court declines to frame a question.
7. In ITA No.554/2015,there are two questions projected by the Revenue. The first concerns the claim of depreciation on goodwill. Considering that the amountinvolved is Rs.5,48,622 and,therefore,insubstantial the Court is notinclined to frame a question oflaw in this case.However,the question is left open for determination in an appropriate case.
8. The next question in ITA No. 554/2015 concerns disallowance of Rs.64,821 on account of depreciation on vehicles. Since the amount involved is insubstantial,no question is framed.
9. The appeals are accordingly dismissed.
AUGUST 10,2015/dn S.MURALIDHAR,J VIBHU BAKHRU,J ITA Nos.553& 554of2015 Page3of[3]