2009 (9) TMI 510

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t- (i) that the disallowance of Rs. 2,91,774 made by the Assessing Officer on account of personal use of cars/telephones was rightly deleted. (ii) that the disallowance of Rs. 77,552 on account of foreign tours expenses was rightly deleted on the principle of business expediency. (iii) that the amount of Rs. 15,22,822 was rightly held to be revenue expenditure on the ground that it was on repairs. (iv) that since in holding that duty draw back, interest income, miscellaneous income and provisions made in earlier years written back were not covered by Explanation (baa) to section 80HHC, the Tribunal had followed the decision in the case of the assessee for the earlier assessment year, which had attained finality, no substantial question of l .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... and circumstances of the case, the hon'ble Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is erred in deleting the disallowance made under section 80HHC by reducing the business profits by 90 per cent. of duty draw back, interest income, miscellaneous income and provisions made in earlier years written back?" 2. In the course of assessment for the assessment year in question, the Assessing Officer disallowed the claim on account of use of cars/telephones and foreign tour expenses. The Assessing Officer also held that expenditure claimed by the assessee towards repairs should be treated as capital expenditure. The Assessing Officer also applied Explanation (baa) to section 80HHC of the Act to the income of the assessee, claimed by the assessee to be misce .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... expenditure was on repairs and was, thus, revenue expenditure. 7. As regards question No. (iv), the Tribunal, following its order in the case of the assessee for the earlier assessment year, held that the expenses were not covered by Explanation (baa). Learned counsel for the assessee points out that the Revenue preferred I. T. A. No. 539 of 2006 but the said finding was not questioned. The tax effect involved on this ground is Rs. 16,628 only. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the assessee and perused the record. 9. Since questions Nos. (i) and (iii) are covered by the earlier order of this court mentioned above, question No. (ii) is covered by the judgment of this court in Avery Cycle [2008] 296 ITR 393 and with respect to questi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X