9911796707
TMI Blog1980 (3) TMI 130X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e clearly admissible under the law. That the learned AAC should have held: (a) That the Development Rebate of Rs. 26,700 was allowable because the appellant had complied with the conditions laid down under s. 33 and 34. (b) That the claim was not vitiated merely because the ld. ITO did not consider the claim in the asst. yr. 1974-75. (c) That in view of the mandatory provisions of law, the entire claim of Development Rebate was allowable. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. AAC was not justified in rejecting the claim under s. 80J. 3. As regards ground No. 1, the ITO has added back as inadmissible, amount of Rs. 3,757.15, claimed by the assessee, as 'Puja expenses'. No discussion is available in the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d machineries be worthy of earning the income and livelihood of the owners and workers, staff members and labourers of the factory. In the context of this fact, Shri Sharma contended that the Puja was a part of regular business since on that day the factory remained closed and it was paid holiday for the workers and a regular feature with the industry and as such was incidental to the business of the assessee and the expenses merited to be allowed. 5. On his part, the ld. Deptl. Rep. supported the orders of the lower authorities and relied upon the ratio of the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Kolhapur Sugar Mills Ltd. vs. CIT Bombay South, Poona(1). 6. We have given due consideration to the facts of the case as also to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... expended over food and entertainment of labourers working who were working in the assessee's own sugar factory and farm and also other labourers who were working under outside cane-growers and those expenses were incurred on the last day of the working season, with a view to induce them to continue to work in the assessee-company in the next season. In that case the assessee has separately claimed labour welfare expenses as also expenses which was a subject-matter before their Lordships of the Bombay High Court. Their Lordship have in the body of the order held, "in the first place, there was no material placed before the taxing authorities or before the Tribunal to indicate what were the amounts actually spent on Satyanarayan Mahapooja an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the owners participate and the said Puja is performed in the factory premises, as a result, on this score the assessee succeeds. 10. As regards ground No. 2 as above, which relates to development rebate at Rs. 26,700, the assessee claimed that the AAC should have held the claim as allowable since the assessee has complied with all the conditions laid down under s. 33 and 34 of the Act and the claim of development rebate was allowable in view of the mandatory provisions of law. We have perused the impugned order of the AAC and find that this ground does not arise out of the impugned order, as such is rejected. On this score the assessee fails. 11. As regards ground No. 3 as above relating to the claim of the assessee under s. 80J of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
