Taxpublishers.in - InterestingDecision/Flash_16348.htm - Tax Publishers Your Tax Solution Hub

Share via Whatsapp 203 Views


The Tax Publishers Toshbro Medicals v. Dy. CIT [ITA No. 7064/Mum/2015, dt. 13-5-2016] : 2017 TaxPub(DT) 0939 (Mum-Trib) Allowability of business expenditure with alternate plea to claim under section 80G *Facts:* Assessee was found to have paid to one Gopal Vipasana foundation a sum of 25 lakhs and was claimed as an allowable expenditure. It was the assessees claim that they got right to use the Gopal Pagoda symbol which was a symbol of repute also its employees had access to the meditation courses of the said foundation. This was denied by the assessing officer as a capital expenditure and factually incorrect expenditure and upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). On further appeal citing alternate claims under section 80G: Held in favour of the assessee that the expenditure is allowable more so under section 80G as held but to verify facts of the payment the case required remand for de novo by Commissioner (Appeals). Assessees sister concern had paid similar amount which was held as above on similar facts by Mumbai ITAT in Chemito Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. Addl. CIT in ITA No. 447/Mum/2013 for the assessment year 2009-10, dated 16-10-2015.

The Tax Publishers

Toshbro Medicals v. Dy. CIT [ITA No. 7064/Mum/2015, dt. 13-5-2016] : 2017 TaxPub(DT) 0939 (Mum-Trib)

Allowability of business expenditure with alternate plea to claim under section 80G

Facts:

Assessee was found to have paid to one Gopal Vipasana foundation a sum of 25 lakhs and was claimed as an allowable expenditure. It was the assessees claim that they got right to use the Gopal Pagoda symbol which was a symbol of repute also its employees had access to the meditation courses of the said foundation. This was denied by the assessing officer as a capital expenditure and factually incorrect expenditure and upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). On further appeal citing alternate claims under section 80G:

Held in favour of the assessee that the expenditure is allowable more so under section 80G as held but to verify facts of the payment the case required remand for de novo by Commissioner (Appeals).

Assessees sister concern had paid similar amount which was held as above on similar facts by Mumbai ITAT in Chemito Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. Addl. CIT in ITA No. 447/Mum/2013 for the assessment year 2009-10, dated 16-10-2015.