9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 348X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sider the grievance of the assessee one by one. 2. The assessee brings to the notice that while deciding ground No. 10 inadvertently the Tribunal has not decided the issue vide (i) which relates to lunch expenses on personnel on outdoor duty. This relates to the disallowance of expenditure u/s. 37(2) of the Act being in the nature of entertainment expenses. The Tribunal has considered this issue at para-48 and on para-50, the Tribunal has given its finding. 3. A perusal of the said finding shows that a typographical error has occurred which needs to be rectified. The finding given at para-50 of the order of the Tribunal should be read as under: We therefore direct the AO to allow the business meeting expenses and expenses on AGM which exp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ake up additional ground No. 17 which relates to allowance of depreciation on the written down value of foreign visitors' expenditure disallowed as capital expenditure. 7. This issue has been decided by the Tribunal in assessee's own case in A.Y. 1992-93 vide ITA No. 1584/M/99 and 1360/M/99 and C.O. No. 256/M/99. This issue has been considered by the Tribunal in A.Y. 1992-93 vide ground No. 47 of that appeal which is at para-26 on page-24 of the order and at para-28, the Tribunal has held that the expenditure incurred on foreign visitors form part of the cost of the project therefore would be eligible for depreciation as per Sec. 32 of the Act. Respectfully following the findings of the Tribunal, we direct the AO to allow the claim of depr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Tribunal sound some ambiguity and contradiction which needs to be clarified. 12. We, accordingly clarify that the Tribunal's direction relates to the verification of the liability of VRS, being supported by actuary valuation certificate, viz-a-viz agreements with the company and the employees. To this extent only this ground is allowed. 13. Ground No. 5 relates to ground No. 2 & 14 of the appeal. Ground No. 2 relates to disallowance of provisions of expenses made at the year end amounting to Rs. 40,90,453/- and ground No. 14 relates to disallowance of Rs. 4,28,000/- on account of expenses for A.Y. 1992-93. 14. Ground No. 2 was considered by the Tribunal at para-9 of its order and the findings is given at para-14. The claim of the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r as an excess provision is concerned, the assessee has rightly reversed the excesses in subsequent years under respective head of expenditure. In so far as shortfall in provisions is concerned, considering the method of accounting which is mercantile, it is the duty of the assessee to make proper provisions and if the assessee has fallen short on certain heads of expenditures the same cannot be allowed. We accordingly dismiss this grievance of the assessee. 18. The last grievance relates to depreciation in respect of Kantla plant. 19. This issue has been considered by the Tribunal vide ground No. 4 at para-20 of its order and at para-25, the Tribunal has held as under: "We have considered the rival submissions. We find that if the plant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
