9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 1012X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve perused the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. As far as question (A) is concerned, same reads as under:- "(A) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble Tribunal was right in deleting the disallowance of Rs.1,19,62,970/- made by the Assessing officer u/s. 43B of the Income Tax Act on account of 'sales tax set off' ?" 3. Learned Counsel appearing for the Revenue has fairly brought to our notice the order passed by this Court in Income Tax Application no.10 of 2002 dated 13.12.2005 (The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Geoffery Manners & Co.Ltd.). He has also invited our attention to the relevant observations and the findings in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gethers and conferences were confirmed by the Tribunal vide para 8.2 of its order dated 3.7.2008 in ITA No.5067/B/90. That was in relation to the same assessee. However, what the assessee contended before the Tribunal is that this concession of the assessee will not bind it. The expenditure incurred for its employees for get-together and conferences has to be deemed as expenditure incurred by its employees at other place of their work. The issue was considered afresh. If the place of conferences and get-together is considered as"Other place of their work", then, no doubt the disallowance under Section 37(2A) of the Act cannot be made. A reference is made to the order passed in Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Vs. Deputy Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ribunal in this case is a possible view and going by the language of Explanation (2) to Section 37(2A) of the Income Tax Act,1961 as then applicable. In the circumstances and when the disallowance is of Rs.8,97,241/-, that we are of the opinion that this appeal does not raise any substantial question of law. It is accordingly dismissed even to this extent. 6. In so far as third question is concerned, that is inclusion of amount of reimbursement of medical expenses, in relation to that though it is urged that the appeal raises substantial question of law what we have noted from the order of the Tribunal is that the Tribunal extensively referred to the stand of the respective parties. The issue was decided in favour of the assessee by the Tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s quashed and set aside. 8. In so far as question (E) is concerned, the same reads as under:- "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble Tribunal was right in holding that while computing deduction u/s.80HHC of the Act, the net foreign exchange relating to export from Kandla Free Trade Zone has also to be considered even though such receipt is covered by Section 10A of the Income Tax Act ?" Even on this question our attention has been invited to the order of the Tribunal for the earlier assessment year. It is submitted that the Tribunal merely followed its view taken earlier, however, the argument is that this issue is raised for the first time, therefore, this is not something which would be sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt of such goods or merchandise as exceeds the amount referred to in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act,1961. The Tribunal held that sub-section (1) only stipulates that the assessee should be an Indian Company, resident in India and engaged in the business of export out of India of any goods or merchandise to which the section applied. Four percent of the net foreign exchange realization referred to, is not restricted to the exports out of India. There is nothing in the language of this provision which enables the Tribunal to uphold the view of the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal also found that this provision does not speak of any other claim and exemption or deduction. There is nothing in the language of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... paragraphs 49 and 50 of the impugned order, does not raise any substantial question of law. The appeal, therefore, deserves to be dismissed on this count." 9. The last question and which is stated to be with regard to deduction of distribution costs is concerned, even in relation to that the Tribunal has noted the rival contentions. The Tribunal has found that in so far as this deduction is concerned, in paragraphs 14.9 and 14.10 of its order dated 3.7.2008 in ITA No.5067/B/90, it dealt with the similar issue for the assessment year 1986-87. The Tribunal found that the view taken by it earlier needs no modification. It allowed the assessee's grievance on that count. 10. Mr.Pardiwalla and equally the Revenue's Counsel have been fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
