9911796707
TMI Blog1980 (1) TMI 130X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ees under an irrevocable trust. On appeal, the CIT (A) following the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Tata Iron Steel Co. Ltd. vs. ITO (2), accepted the assessee's claim. The Department has come on appeal before us against the above order. 3. After hearing the parties, we see no reason to disturb the order of the CIT (A) on this point. The decision relied on by the CIT(A) squarely supports assessee's claim. The Tribunal (Madras Bench 'C') has taken the same view in the case of ITO, Comp. Cirl. I (2) Madras vs. M/s Parry Co. Ltd., Madras (1) for the asst. yr. 1971-72 (order dt. 20th Sept., 1979) wherein it is further pointed out that a similar deduction was allowed by the Madras High Court in the case of Andhra Prabha ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on facts of this case. He also urged that in any event only the cost of the confectionery donated would be entitled to deduction under s. 80G and not its market value. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the assessee besides relying on the ruling of the Madras High Court referred to by the CIT (A), viz., 113 ITR 737, also referred us to the ruling in CIT, Bombay City vs. Associated Cement Co. Ltd. (6), and that case of CIT Mysore vs. Bangalore Woollen, Cotton and Silk Mills Co. Ltd.(7), in support of his stand. 7. Having heard the parties, we see no reason to disturb the order of the CIT (A) on this point since we find that he has only followed the decision of the Madras High Court reported in 113 ITR 737, which is binding on us. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earned departmental representative urged that the ruling of the Gujarat High Court relied on by the CITA dealt only with the amount of interest under s. 217(1A) and 215 of the IT Act, 1961, and, therefore, it would not apply to this case. He further submitted that the ruling of the Madras High Court in A.K. Bashu Sahib vs. 1st ITO, Vellore (9) supported the Department's stand that the amount paid was not advance-tax. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the identical issue was considered by the Tribunal (Madras Bench "C") comprising of Shri C. Kochunni Nair and Shri O.V. Subramanian in the case of ITO Comp. Circle I (2), Madras vs. Parry Co. Ltd. Madras (10) for asst. yr. 1971-72, wherein a similar conten ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
