A company cannot have any personal expenditure. ITAT deleted ad hoc disallowance on vehicle running and maintenance expenditure
ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
ABCAUS 3146 (2019) (09) ITAT
In the instant case, one of the issue was related to ad-hoc disallowance being 10% of the vehicle repairs and maintenance expenditure.
The Assessing Officer (AO) noted that assessee had incurred expenditure on account of vehicle running and maintenance expenditure and depreciation on motor cars respectively.
The AO further noted that the directors of the company did not own any personal vehicles and not they had offered any amount of revenue as perquisites it in their hands on account of personal use of vehicles owned by the assessee company.
Therefore he disallowed 10% of the expenditure and the depreciation on the motor car on account of personal expenses incurred.
The CIT-A confirmed the 10% disallowance with respect to vehicle repairs and maintenance expenditure however he deleted the disallowance on account of depreciation.
Before the Tribunal, the appellant assessee submitted that the assessee was a company and there could not be any personal expenditure. He further submitted that mere ad hoc disallowance could not be disallowed.
The Tribunal noted that the assessing officer had given a reason that the assessee has incurred the above expenditure is personal expenditure as the director did not own any motor car nor had they shown any income as perquisites on account of the use of the motor car.
A company cannot have any personal expenditure
The Tribunal rejected the said reasons as not appropriate for making the disallowance because assessee was a company which could not have any personal expenditure.
Further the Tribunal opined that if any addition was required to be made on account of perquisites, the same was required to be made in the hands of the director, if they had used it for their own benefit and not for the purposes of the business of the company.
In view of this, the Tribunal reversed the finding of the lower authorities and directed the assessing officer to delete ad hoc disallowance made on account of vehicle running and maintenance expenditure.
Download Full Judgment Click Here >>
- Non striking of limb of penalty u/s 271(1)(c). Appeal to be restored on favourable judgment by SC
- Assessment framed by AO having no territorial jurisdiction as per Postal Pin Code quashed
- Pledge include re-pledge of securities for margin / settlement obligations of client – SEBI
- CPC if not satisfied with reply of assessee, has to issue notice u/s 143(2) before making disallowance
- CBDT fixes Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme target as 100% eligible disputed tax demand cases
addition u/s 68 budget 2017-18 ca misconduct cash deposit in bank CBDT cbdt circular CBDT Instruction cbdt notification cbdt order cbdt press release cgst circular cgst notification cit revision 263 concealment penalty custom circular demonetisation due date extension e-way bill faq GST circular GST Council Meeting gst faq GSTR-3B GST rates gst refund IBBI icai income tax prosecution itat ITAT Delhi mca circular MCA notification order u/s 119 penalty 271(1)(c) penalty u/s 271(1)(c) Press Release reasons recorded reopening 148 Reopening us 147 sebi circular service tax notification transfer and postings unexplained cash credits validity of notice u/s 148 Withdrawal of 2000 500 Bank Notes