9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (1) TMI 535X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sudhakar Reddy, Accountant Member. - This is an appeal filed by the Revenue, directed against the order of the CIT (Appeals)-V (Cent.), Hyderabad, dated 30-11-2000, for the assessment year 1997-98. 2. Ground No. 1 in this appeal is general in nature. 3. Ground Nos. 2 and 3 are against the finding of the first appellate authority that the provisions of section 80HHC(4) are only directory i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... High Court in the case of Hemsons Industries ( supra ). Full Bench of the Hon ble Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. Punjab Financial Corporation [2002] 254 ITR 6 3 , has taken a similar view. Respectfully following the same, we uphold the order of the first appellate authority. 5. Ground No. 4 is against the finding of the first appellate authority that the bonus payment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rst appellate authority for the detailed reasons given by him. It is well-settled that entries in the books do not govern the allowability or otherwise of an expenditure. This ground of the Revenue is, therefore, dismissed. 7. Ground Nos. 6 to 9 are against the finding of the first appellate authority on the issue of disallowance of Rs. 6,39,720 being excise duty payment, under section 43B of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rk (P.) Ltd. v. IAC [1994] 49 ITD 56 and ITO v. Food Specialities Ltd. [1994] 49 ITD 21 (Delhi)(SB). 8. The learned departmental representative placed reliance on the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Dy. CIT v. CWC Wines (P.) Ltd. [2004] 89 ITD 1 (Hyd.). The learned counsel for the assessee submits that the order in the case of CWC Wines (P.) Ltd. ( sup ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bench of the Tribunal referred to above is not applicable to the facts of the case inasmuch as that case was dealing with situation where certain amounts had to be paid in advance, that is, even before the purchase of the goods. In the case on hand, the expenditure in question was paid only after it became due. For these reasons, we uphold the order of the first appellate authority and dismiss th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
