9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (9) TMI 332X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble I.T.A.T. is right in holding that the payments of Rs.86.32 lakhs on account of gratuity, retrenchment compensation and leave encashment made to workers in connection with VRS, which was made for closure of business is allowable revenue expenditure ? (B) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble I.T.A.T. right in holding that the payments made to the workers amounting to Rs.86.32 lakhs is revenue expenditure ignoring the fact that these payments were not made in the normal course of the running of the business but were made in connection with VRS given to the workers for closure of business and as per agreement with workers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Voluntary Retirement Scheme. 6. In the grounds of the appeal before us, it is not contended that the payments were not made towards the Voluntary Retirement Scheme. It is not even alleged that the Tribunal wrongly recorded that there was no dispute that the payments had been made. 7. Thus, even assuming that the appellant is entitled to raise this issue in appeal, it would not raise a substantial question of law. 8. The remaining questions sought to be raised by the appellant are as under :- (C) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble I.T.A.T. was right in holding VRS payment of Rs.27.92 crores, made to workers for closure of factory with an intention to develop mill land, was a revenue ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d on the question raised in paragraph 4 (E). The question sought to be raised in paragraph 4(F) is a facet of the question raised in paragraph 4(E) and would follow the decision thereon. Re Question (C): 10. It is not seriously disputed that the question is covered by the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Bhor Industries Limited, (2003) 264 ITR 180. Indeed, paragraphs 50, 51 and 52 of the order of the Tribunal record that the Commissioner of Income Tax had allowed the claim in view of the above decisions of this Court and that it had been fairly stated on behalf of the appellant that the issue was covered by the said decision. Further, in view thereof, we had, by an order dated 7th August, 2012, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
