1980 (3) TMI 120

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Head Office atDelhi, Rs. 63 in the branch office atBombayand Rs. 145 in the branch office atCalcutta. These three amounts were disallowed by the ITO on the ground that the expenditure was in the nature of entertainment. 2. On appeal, the AAC observed that the expenditure incurred was for providing tea, cold drinks etc. to the visiting customers out of business necessity and ordinary courtesy. C .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ideration before the Tribunal was whether a sum of Rs. 5,286 on account of messing expenses which was disallowed by the ITO but which was allowed by the AAC was to be treated as entertainment expenditure or not. The Revenue came in appeal before the Tribunal and has relied on the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Brij Raman Das Sons vs. CIT(2). The Tribunal followed the decision of the Guj .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the material on record?" The Bombay High Court rejected the Commissioner's application under s. 256(2) by their order in ITA. No. 30 of 1978 dt.13th June, 1978and in ITA No. 363 of 1977. It was against this order of the Bombay High Court that the Special Leave petition was made to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court rejected this petition. By such refusal the Supreme Court has approved the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X