2011 (5) TMI 839

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... adhoc 10% disallowance claimed by it on account of sales and business promotion expenses. The CIT(A) on appreciation of material on record, however, restricted the disallowance to an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- and deleted the balance amount. No substantial question of law, appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed
Adarsh Kumar Goel, Ajay Kumar Mittal, JJ. Yogesh Putney for the Appellant. JUDGMENT Ajay Kumar Mittal, J. - This appeal under Section 260A of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") has been filed by the Revenue against the order dated 20.8.2010, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi Bench 'C', New Delhi (in short "the Tribunal") in ITA No. 3050/Del/2008, relating to the assessment year 2002-03. 2. The fol .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... v. Chitram and Co. (P) Ltd. 191 ITR 92 and CIT v. Madura Coats Ltd. 263 ITR 241?" 3. The facts, in brief, necessary for adjudication as narrated in the appeal, are that the respondent-assessee filed return for the assessment year 2002-03 on 31.12.2002, declaring income of Rs. 17,97,99,180/-. The assessment was, however, completed on 30.3.2005 vide order passed under Section 143(3) of the Act at an income of Rs. 19,59,12,430/- wherein certain additions and disallowances were made by the assessing officer. 4. The assessee preferred appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [in short "CIT(A)"]. The assessee was granted relief by the CIT(A) vide order dated 31.7.2008 of an amount of Rs. 15,28,846/-. The disallowance made by the a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Nos. 288, 387 and 439 of 2009 (CIT v. G.E. Motors (I) (P.) Ltd. dated on 25.1.2011 and the said questions were held not to be substantial questions of law. Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid decision of this Court, the questions (a) and (c) noticed above, are held not to be substantial questions of law. 9. Adverting to the question at (b) mentioned above, it may be noticed that the CIT(A) while delving thereon passed the following order: "I have considered the facts and the submissions of the Ld. A.R. and also perused the order of the AO and I tend to agree with the contentions of the appellant that no specific instance of the expenditure was brought out where it was not supported by the necessary evidence. However, still, if any disa .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X