ITA No. 19 of 2009 Date of Decision: 8.10.2012 Kamal Family Trust Punjab and Haryana High Court
Question relates to the admissibility of expenses on account of foreign travel incurred by Kamal Khanna and his wife which has been allowed to the extent of 50% by the CIT(A) and upheld by the Tribunal. The CIT(A) while allowing 50% deduction on account of expenses incurred on foreign visit by Kamal Khanna and his wife had noted that Kamal Khanna was a heart patient and was looking after the business of the firm. is wife had to accompany for looking after him on visit to the foreign country. It was also recorded that the visit resulted in increase in the business and after analyzing the factual matrix had allowed 50% expenses as revenue expenditure which was wholly and exclusively expended for business purposes. The said finding was
affirmed on appeal by the Tribunal. It would basically be a question of fact as to how much expense is reasonable and is allowable in a given case. In the present case, on appreciation of evidence, it was recorded
by the CIT(A) and affirmed by the Tribunal that it was 50% which was reasonable and was to be allowed as revenue expenditure. An effort was made by the learned counsel for the revenue to submit that 50% had been allowed without any basis. He, however, could not substantiate the said plea. Accordingly, question (A) is answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee.
Question relates to the admissibility of expenses on account of foreign travel incurred by Kamal Khanna and his wife which has been allowed to the extent of 50% by the CIT(A) and upheld by the Tribunal. The CIT(A) while allowing 50% deduction on account of expenses incurred on foreign visit by Kamal Khanna and his wife had noted that Kamal Khanna was a heart patient and was looking after the business of the firm. is wife had to accompany for looking after him on visit to the foreign country. It was also recorded that the visit resulted in increase in the business and after analyzing the factual matrix had allowed 50% expenses as revenue expenditure which was wholly and exclusively expended for business purposes. The said finding was
affirmed on appeal by the Tribunal. It would basically be a question of fact as to how much expense is reasonable and is allowable in a given case. In the present case, on appreciation of evidence, it was recorded
by the CIT(A) and affirmed by the Tribunal that it was 50% which was reasonable and was to be allowed as revenue expenditure. An effort was made by the learned counsel for the revenue to submit that 50% had been allowed without any basis. He, however, could not substantiate the said plea. Accordingly, question (A) is answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee.
