Held that the assessee submitted a fabricated agreement and failed to provide any supporting evidence for its sales commission claim, lower authorities were justified in making addition for sales Held that claimed foreign travel expenses by a director exploring UK market, however, assessee failed to furnish any evidence to establish that such expenditure had been incurred wholly and exclusively for purpose of its business, said claim was rightly rejected by lower authorities. Held that business promotion expenses claimed by assessee were found to be used for personal purposes and gifting jewellery to customers, in absence of any assistance rendered by assessee in that respect, said claim was to be disallowed. Held that since detailed quantification or basis on which such expenses were booked was not reflected from invoice submitted by assessee and neither such invoices contained any stamp, seal, inward mark or receipt date, said expenses was to be treated as bogus. (AY. 2011-12)
Aditya Exim Ltd. v. DCIT (2023) 106 ITR 331 / 203 ITD 496 (Ahd) (Trib.)
S.37(1) : Business expenditure-Fabricated agreement-Sales commission-Failure to provide supporting documents-Foreign travelling expenses of director–Sales promotion-Failure to produce evidence-Bogus expenditure-Disallowance is justified