9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (6) TMI 93X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on. This, therefore, goes out of our consideration in so far as its determination on merits is concerned. It is dismissed as such. 3. In ground No. 2, the grievance of the assessee is that the ld. CIT(A) erred in law in not giving any clear finding in respect of the system of accounting regularly employed by the assessee. We find that the assessee had taken ground No. 2 before the ld. CIT(A) to project that the authorities below were not justified both on facts and in law in not following the system of accounting of the appellant. We find that this dispute about the system of accounting followed by the assesses arose in the income-tax assessment proceedings for the year under appeal. The dispute was because the assessee has not followed a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e taken as a finding of fact which is binding in the earlier assessments. It appears that that observation was made because for the asstt. year 1977-78, which is now under appeal before us, the assessee had claimed hybrid system. However, for the years prior to this, we have shown supra as to how the authorities below found the assessee following mercantile system in declaring the taxable income. 4. However, when this issue was raised before the ld. CIT(A) he has dealt with the various items of income from various collaboration agreements and given his findings thereon. We, on the facts of the case, do not find any justification to interfere in his order on this issue, because the claim of the assessee that it is following hybrid system of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onsideration of the rival submissions that the assesses has been furnishing such particulars of this amount, which cannot be called as true and correct. We say so because the details of this amount of Rs. 40,072 are as under : Rs. (a) Retainer expenses paid to cooks engaged for the period of waiting before embarkation 6,302.70 (b) Charges for overseas telephone calls and cables etc. 7,794.65 (c) Foreign exchange purchased for directors etc. under Reserve Bank sanction for proceeding toNew Yorkin connection with the Court case before the Supreme Court atNew York17,243.90 (d) Cost of air-tickets 3,292.00 (e) Expenses incurred in connection with obtaining pass-ports visas for goods sent toNew York16,016.75 (f) Cost of foreign sta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... called as advance and the claim for their write off was apparently untenable. It was rightly rejected by the authorities below. This ground also fails and is dismissed, as such. 9. The next ground is numbered 4 and is regarding the weighted deduction u/s. 35B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. In this regard, we find that before the ITO a claim for weighted deduction was made on the amount of Rs. 1,38,885. This sum consisted of legal fees and professional charges amounting to Rs. 78,678 and foreign tour expenses amounting to Rs. 57,207. The ITO disallowed this claim by pointing out that legal expenses do not fall in any of the clauses mentioned in clauses of section 35B and hence benefit of weighted deduction is not allowable on these expenses. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity abroad as laid down in sub-clause (1) of section 35B. He directed that out of the expenditure of Rs. 28,093 under the above heads 50% which comes to Rs. 14,046 should be taken for allowing weighted deduction, which quantified at Rs. 4,682. 12. Now, we find that the ground taken by the assessee does not seek any specific relief on quantum. There are no details as to what relief is claimed. There is mere contention recorded in this ground that the CIT (A) erred in not fully allowing the appellant's claim for weighted deduction u/s. 35B and allowing the claim in part. In the Court, the ld. counsel for the assessee was not in a position to show us the total quantum of claim and how such items could be covered by the various clauses u/s. 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that in so far asJapanwas concerned, there was double taxation avoidance agreement with that country. In fact, the ld. CIT (A) found that there was provision in Article 11 of the said double taxation avoidance agreement and the case of the assessee could be considered thereunder. He, therefore, directed the ITO to allow deduction to which the appellant is entitled in terms of article 11 of the treaty withJapan. 16. In respect of the dividend Income fromU.K.it was pointed out before him that there was no double taxation avoidance agreement. The ld. CIT (A), therefore, gave directions to the ITO that in accordance with the provisions of section 91(1) of the Act unilateral relief allowable to the assessee should be given. Thus, the direction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
