9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (7) TMI 117X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... postal charges also. We notice that there was a similar claim raised by the assessee before the AO as also before the CIT(A) but the AO found that there was no proof available with the assessee to show that the expenses had been incurred on account of more than one person occupying a single room. The CIT(A) has confirmed the disallowance for the reason that there was no evidence to show that the disallowance has not been made in accordance with the provisions of r. 6D. Before us also no evidence was furnished by the assessee's counsel to show that there was any mistake in the computation of the amount considered as disallowable under r. 6D of the IT Rules. In the circumstances of this case, we find no reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A) confirming the disallowance of Rs. 38,950 under r. 6D. 3. In the next ground the assessee is aggrieved with the disallowance of Rs. 18,465 under r. 6B(1)(a) of the IT Rules. The AO made the disallowance after considering the assessee's claim that the expenses were incurred with a view to advertise or familiarise the company and its activities in various centres. The AO held that claim for deduction could not be allowed in view of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee's claim is that it is an industrial undertaking engaged in the manufacture and production of various intermediate articles which would go into the main contract work of construction of buildings, concrete foundations, bridges, tunnels, etc. and in that sense it could be said to be manufacturing or producing articles to become eligible for deduction under ss. 80HH and 80-I. It has been brought to our notice that this matter has been considered by the Tribunal at length in the appeals for the asst. yrs. 1979-80 to 1982-83. In the order in ITA Nos. 835, 836, 837 838/Coch/1985, dt. 19th May, 1997, this Tribunal held that the assessee did not qualify as an industrial undertaking engaged in the manufacture or production of articles to become eligible for the deductions under ss. 80HH and 80-I. For the same reasons, as found in respect of the earlier years, we hold that the assessee's claim was rightly rejected by the Revenue authorities. Accordingly, we uphold the finding of the CIT(A) as regards the claim of deductions under ss. 80HH and 80-I. 6. As the next ground, the assessee's grievance is that the CIT(A) failed to consider an additional ground raised on 7th Jan., 1993 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,466 and taken to the P L a/c for that year, it was later found that the provisional receipt was in excess by Rs. 5,20,558 and so adjustment entry was made in the accounts for the next year i.e., 1990-91 as contract receipt—written back. The AO did not accept the claim for deduction of the amount as adjustment from the income for the current year. On the view that the claim did not represent any expenditure incurred during the year and that it was only the reversal of an income of the earlier year, the AO rejected the claim for deduction of the amount. The CIT(A) confirmed the decision of the AO not to allow deduction of the claim as no expenditure had been incurred during this year. 10. Before us, the learned counsel for the assessee, Shri Joseph Markos, submitted that the assessee's claim was not for deduction of Rs. 5,20,558 as an expenditure incurred during the year and in that sense the AO was not correct in holding that the claim was not allowable as an expenditure items. The learned counsel drew our attention to the 14th Annual Report for the asst. yr. 1989-90 and pointed out that the Schedule I on p. 22 contained the notes attached to the balance sheet and P L a/c and th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... artmental Representative, Shri C.D. Nair, on the other hand submitted that for the asst. yr. 1990-91 the assessee had claimed the sum of Rs. 5,20,558 under expenditure as evidenced from the details available under Schedule I on p. 23 of the Annual Report. It was his contention that when there was no expenditure incurred for the year ending 31st March, 1990 to the extent of Rs. 5,20,558, the AO as also the CIT(A) was justified in not allowing the deduction for the asst. yr. 1990-91. 12. We have gone through the printed 14th Annual Report for the year 1989-90 and verified the facts on the basis of the details available in Schedule I appearing on pp. 22 and 23 of the report. The details show that the assessee made a debit of a total sum of Rs. 6,32,371 in the P L a/c under the head 'expenditure' and that one of the items included therein was Rs. 5,20,558 with the narration "contract receipts—Bombay works—written back". The AO was correct in not allowing deduction for the amount as there was no such expenditure incurred during the previous year. Even if the entry shows contract receipt written back, the same is not deductible from the income for the asst. yr. 1990-91. The assessee m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
