![]() It was pleaded that assessee company was having substantial export business in United Kingdom and further the assessee wanted to promote the sale of Soya – DOC- Hypro, which was a new variety of DOC (DE Oiled Cake) developed specially for the European market and introduced for the first time during the F.Y.2009-10 by the assessee. CIT(A) that these foreign trips were undertaken after due approval of the Board and were clearly for the purpose of business. ITAT find that the assessee had stated before the ld. Accordingly, AO disallowed a sum towards foreign travel expenses as not meant for the purpose of business of the assessee in the assessment. AO observed that assessee could not produce any other evidences to substantiate the business nexus by proving the purpose of visit by its Directors to these foreign countries and benefits derived by the assessee company thereon pursuant to such visits. AO observed that all the three persons travelled to the same location i.e. ![]() The assessee submitted the ledger account alongwith copy of invoices issued by the travel agent. The assessee was asked to justify the business nexus of these foreign trips for the purpose of allowability by the ld. ITAT states that, the assessee had debited a sum on account of foreign travelling expenses for Europe visit and a sum on account of foreign travel for travelling to London. ![]() The issue under consideration is whether disallowance made against the foreign expense incurred for the foreign travelling of the officer is justified in law?
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |