9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 163X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion - Held that:- the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of India Cements Ltd. vs. CIT (1965 (12) TMI 22 - SUPREME Court). Respectfully following the same, we decline to interfere in the order of CIT(A) on this issue.- Decided in favour of assessee. Disallowance of 100% equity issue expenses - CIT(A) allowed claim - Held that:- This issue is now squarely covered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Brooke Bond India Ltd. vs. CIT [1997 (2) TMI 11 - SUPREME Court] - Decided in favour of revenue. Disallowance of foreign tour expenses - CIT(A) allowed claim - Held that:- his issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal order in assessee’s own case for assessment year 1985-86 and Learned D.R. of the Revenue could not point out any difference in facts in the present year and therefore, we do not find any reason to take a contrary view - Decided in favour of assessee. Addition of expenses report at capital expenditure by the special tax auditors - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- Out of total expenses of ₹ 2,38,09, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nses - expenses relating to the wives of the Directors/employees - Held that:- Out of foreign travelling expenses in respect of four spouses of directors of the assessee company, the expenses of ₹ 17,301/- regarding Mrs. R. Singhania is allowable otherwise also because she is a qualified Doctor and was looking after the hospital for employees at Kota plant of the assessee company. The CIT(A) has confirmed this disallowance in respect of expenses of Mrs. R. Singhania also but in our considered opinion, apart from being spouse of the director, Mrs. R. Singhania is an employee of the assessee company also and moreover while deciding the similar issue in assessment year 1987-88, it is held by the Tribunal in that year as per Para 216 of its order that this issue regarding travelling expenses of spouse of the directors is covered in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal order for assessment year 1983-84 and 1984-85. Since no difference in facts could be pointed out by Learned D.R. of the Revenue, we delete this disallowance by respectfully following the Tribunal order. - Decided in favour of assessee. Disallowance of traveling expenses on guest as reported by Special Tax Audi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l against the assessee by following the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. Sri Mangayarkarasi Mills P. Ltd. [2009 (7) TMI 17 - SUPREME COURT]. Accordingly, in the present year also, this issue is decided against the assessee. - ITA No.457/LKW/2010,ITA No.486/LKW/2010 - - - Dated:- 26-6-2015 - Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav, and Shri A.K. Garodia, JJ. For the Petitioner : Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate For the Respondent : Dr. Anand Kumar Agarwal, C.I.T., D. R. ORDER PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. These are cross appeals filed by the assessee and the Revenue, which are directed against the order of CIT(A)-1, Kanpur dated 30/04/2010 for assessment year 1990-91. 2. First we take up the appeal of the Revenue i.e. I.T.A. No.486/Lkw/2010. 3. Ground No. 1 is as under: 1. That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II, Kanpur has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of ₹ 83,69,631/- on account of Proportionate premium on redemption of debenture without appreciating the fact that no premium was payable before expiry of 7 years. 4. Learned D. R. of the Revenue supported the assessment order whereas learned A. R. of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... favour of the assessee by the Tribunal order in earlier year and since no difference in facts could be pointed out by Learned D.R. of the Revenue, we do not find any reason to take a contrary view in the present year. Accordingly, Ground No. 2 is rejected. 9. Ground No. 3 is as under: 3. That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II, Kanpur has erred in law and on facts in allowing the debentures issue expenditure without appreciating the facts that the assessee had issued these debentures to part finance capital cost of company's tyre cord and naylon units as well as to part finance company's normal capital expenditure. 10. Learned D. R. of the Revenue supported the assessment order whereas learned A. R. of the assessee supported the order of learned CIT(A). He also submitted that this issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of India Cements Ltd. vs. CIT [1966] 60 ITR 52 (SC) and also by the Tribunal order in assessee s own case for assessment year 1985-86, copy of which is available on pages 188 to 198 of the paper book. 11. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that the issu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 85-86 and Learned D.R. of the Revenue could not point out any difference in facts in the present year and therefore, we do not find any reason to take a contrary view. This ground is rejected. 18. Ground No. 6(a) is as under: 6(a) That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II, Kanpur has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of ₹ 2,00,000/- on account of depreciation on other assets on the guest houses without appreciating the facts that the assessee had not produced any details in respect of assets at Guest Houses. 19. Learned D. R. of the Revenue supported the assessment order whereas learned A. R. of the assessee supported the order of learned CIT(A). He also submitted that the disallowance has been confirmed by the Tribunal in assessee s own case for assessment year 1988-89 in I.T.A. No.2633/Del/94, copy of which is available on pages 26 to 27 of the paper book. 20. We have considered the rival submissions. Since Learned A.R. of the assessee has fairly conceded that the issue in dispute is covered in favour of the Revenue in assessee s own case, we reverse the order of CIT(A) and restore that of the Assessing Officer. This ground is allowe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... count of entertainment expenditure ignoring that these expenses hit by provisions contained u/s 37(2A) of the I.T. Act. 28. Learned D. R. of the Revenue supported the assessment order whereas learned A. R. of the assessee supported the order of learned CIT(A). He also submitted that this issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal order in assessee s own case for assessment year 1985-86 and relevant pages are available on pages 117 to 118 and 121 to 122 of the paper book. 29. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that relief has been allowed by learned CIT(A) to the extent of 50% of expenses incurred by the assessee by following a Tribunal decision in assessee s own case for assessment year 1987-88 and Learned D.R. of the Revenue could not point out any difference in facts in the present year and therefore, we do not find any reason to take a contrary view. This ground is rejected. 30. Ground No. 8 is as under: 8. That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II, Kanpur has erred in law and on facts in allowing relief of ₹ 34,55,544/- being the disallowance on account of proportionate interest on the interest free loans to M/s J. K. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has also noted that this amount has been debited to capital work in progress. The disallowance was made by the Assessing Officer on the basis that since the assessee has capitalized the whole amount in books, the amount of technical knowhow is essentially a capital expenditure and is in capital work in progress. In our considered opinion, 1/6th of such expenses incurred for technical knowhow is allowable u/s 35AB in the year of incurring the expenditure and in this manner 1/6th of such amount is allowable in the succeeding five years also but it has to be ensured that the assessee is not claiming depreciation also on this expenditure capitalized by the assessee. Hence, to ensure that the assessee is not claiming double deduction in respect of this expenditure, first by claiming u/s 35AB and again by claiming depreciation on such expenses, we feel it proper that the matter should go back to the file of the Assessing Officer to verify this aspect. Hence, we set aside the order of CIT(A) on this issue and restore this matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh decision. The assessee has to establish before the Assessing Officer that no depreciation was claimed and allowed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) is as under: 10(b) That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II, Kanpur has erred in law and on facts in restricting the disallowance of ₹ 1,00,000/- on account of expenses related to Kamla Retreat. 41. Learned D. R. of the Revenue supported the assessment order whereas learned A. R. of the assessee supported the order of learned CIT(A). He also submitted that this issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal order in assessee s own case for assessment year 1985-86 and 1988-89 and relevant pages are available on pages 113 to 114 of the paper book. 42. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that this issue regarding ad hoc disallowance out of other expenses of Kamla Retreat is covered in favour of the assessee by both the Tribunal orders cited by Learned A.R. of the assessee in assessee s own case for assessment year 1985-86 and 1988-89. Learned D.R. of the Revenue could not point out any difference in facts in the present year and therefore, we do not find any reason to take a contrary view. This ground is rejected. 43. Ground No. 11 is as under: 11. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere produce before him and as such, the relief given is without basis. 50. Learned D. R. of the Revenue supported the assessment order whereas learned A. R. of the assessee supported the order of learned CIT(A). He also submitted that this issue is covered in favour of the assessee by Tribunal orders for various years such as assessment year 1983-84, 1984-85, 1985-86, 1986-87 and 1988-89 and relevant orders are available in paper book. 51. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that this issue is covered in favour of the assessee by in favour of the assessee by Tribunal orders for various years such as assessment year 1983-84, 1984-85, 1985- 86, 1986-87 and 1988-89. Learned D.R. of the Revenue could not point out any difference in facts in the present year and therefore, we do not find any reason to take a contrary view. This ground is rejected. 52. Ground No. 14 is as under: 14. That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II, Kanpur has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of ₹ 2,38,09,910/- ignoring that these expenses report at capital expenditure by the special tax auditors. 53. Learned D. R. of the Revenue supported the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 592506 18 Others 472919 Total 23163516 He further argued that disallowances have been solely rested upon report of the Spl. Tax Auditors. He also stated that item16 wise detailed reply was given to the Sp. Tax Auditors as well as to the AO for each and every items of revenue expenditure debited to Profit Loss A/c. He stated that as evident from discussion in the impugned assessment order, it becomes clear that learned AO has not gone into merits of the expenses claimed and only basing upon the report of the Spl. Auditors , disallowed the same being of capital nature and by doing so, he had also not allowed depreciation as well. He also mentioned that learned AO has also failed to bring any cogent material or factor contrary to the explanation put on record by the appellant with a view to discharge burden of proof which was upon Ld. AO, disallowance has been made by treating expenditure of perfect revenue nature as capital. In the appellant own case for assessment year 1994-95, my predecessor had vacated the disallowance at Para 40.ii, page 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee. 56. Learned D. R. of the Revenue supported the assessment order whereas learned A. R. of the assessee supported the order of learned CIT(A). He also submitted that this issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal order in assessee s own case for assessment year 1984-85, 1988-89 and 1989-90 and relevant pages are available in paper book. 57. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that this issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal order in assessee s own case for assessment year 1984-85, 1988-89 and 1989-90 and Learned D.R. of the Revenue could not point out any difference in facts in the present year and therefore, we do not find any reason to take a contrary view. This ground is rejected. 58. Ground No. 16 is as under: 16. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that depreciation on Railway Siding be calculated treating it as Plant Machinery instead of part of roads. 59. Learned D. R. of the Revenue supported the assessment order whereas learned A. R. of the assessee supported the order of learned CIT(A). He also submitted that this issue is covered in fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al order in assessee s own case for assessment year 1984-85. 66. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that this issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal order in assessee s own case for assessment year 1984-85 and Learned D.R. of the Revenue could not point out any difference in facts in the present year and therefore, we do not find any reason to take a contrary view. This ground is rejected. 67. Ground No. 18(a) is as under: 18(a) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in reducing the addition of ₹ 9,52,663/- to ₹ 4,76,331/- on account of entertainment expenses ignoring the principles laid down in the case of CIT Vs. Yadav Transport Service 167 ITR 474 (RAJ.) 68. Learned D. R. of the Revenue supported the assessment order whereas learned A. R. of the assessee supported the order of learned CIT(A). He also submitted that this issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal order in assessee s own case for assessment year 1993-94 and relevant pages are available on pages 179 to 180 of the paper book. 69. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that this issue is c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... umstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 4,56,391/- even though these expenses were not meant wholly and exclusively for business purposes. 77. Learned D. R. of the Revenue supported the assessment order whereas learned A. R. of the assessee supported the order of learned CIT(A). He also submitted that this issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal order in assessee s own case for assessment year 1985-86 and relevant pages are available on page 180 and 181 of the paper book. 78. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that this issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal order in assessee s own case for assessment year 1985-86 and Learned D.R. of the Revenue could not point out any difference in facts in the present year and therefore, we do not find any reason to take a contrary view. This ground is rejected. 79. Ground No. 19 is as under: 19. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) was not correct in reducing the disallowance from ₹ 22,07,155/- to ₹ 4,49,045/- under the head General Charges for which no details were filed. 80. Learned D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have considered the rival submissions. We find that this issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal order in assessee s own case for assessment year 1985-86, 1993-94 1995-96 and Learned D.R. of the Revenue could not point out any difference in facts in the present year and therefore, we do not find any reason to take a contrary view. This ground is rejected. 88. Ground No. 20(c) is as under: 20(c) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 1,36,869/- even though these expenses were not meant wholly and exclusively for business purposes. 89. Learned D. R. of the Revenue supported the assessment order whereas learned A. R. of the assessee supported the order of learned CIT(A). He also submitted that this issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal order in assessee s own case for assessment year 1983-84. Copy of the order is available in paper book. 90. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that this issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal order in assessee s own case for assessment year 1983-84 and Learned D.R. of the Revenue could n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aw in deleting the disallowance of ₹ 7,15,70,998/- ignoring the fact that section 350 of the Companies Act does not permit change in WDV of fixed assets on account of their revaluation as well as the WDV cannot be changed on account loss due to exchange rate fluctuations, because there is no section under the companies act permitting this on the lines of section 43A of the I.T. Act, 1961. 98. Learned D. R. of the Revenue supported the assessment order whereas learned A. R. of the assessee supported the order of learned CIT(A). He also submitted that this issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal order in assessee s own case for assessment year 1988-89 and 1989-90. Copy of the order is available on paper book. 99. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that this issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal order in assessee s own case for assessment year 1988-89 and 1989-90. Learned D.R. of the Revenue could not point out any difference in facts in the present year and therefore, we do not find any reason to take a contrary view. This ground is rejected. 100. Ground No. 22 is as under: 22. That the Commissioner of Inco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 305 of the order and the appellant claimed such enhanced value of closing stock as on 31.3.89, as opening stock as on 1.4.89 which was first day of the assessment year 1990- 91. In appeal before me, the AR of the appellant stated that order in the appeal for A.Y. 1989-90 has, since, been passed and addition has been upheld, therefore he requested my intervention to issue orders for the revision of valuation of opening stock in the year in question. I have considered the facts of the case as well as arguments placed before me. I have also gone through the order for the assessment year 1989-90 referred above. Since addition has been upheld by my predecessor in A.yr. 1989-90, the AO is directed to revise the value of opening stock by ₹ 2,22,35,679/- for the year under appeal. The ground No. 28 is, therefore decided in favour of the appellant. (Relief - Directions) 105.1 From the above Para from the order of CIT(A), it is seen that the claim of the assessee for enhancement in opening stock in the present year is on the basis that in assessment year 1989-90, the closing stock was enhanced by the Assessing Officer. It is also noted by CIT(A) that the addition in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... even though the expenditure hit by section 37(2A) of the Act. 109. Learned D. R. of the Revenue supported the assessment order whereas learned A. R. of the assessee supported the order of learned CIT(A). He also submitted that this issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal order in assessee s own case for assessment year 1988-89 in I.T.A. No.2633/Del/94 and relevant order is available on pages 25 and 26 of Part-I of the paper book. He also submitted that in assessment year 1993-94 to 1995-96 also, similar issue was decided by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee and deduction was allowed to the extent of 70% of the expenses on presentation articles. 110. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that in the present year, the CIT(A) has deleted the entire disallowance made by the Assessing Officer on account of presentation articles whereas in assessment year 1993-94 to 1995-96, disallowance was confirmed by the Tribunal to the extent of 30% of such expenses. Accordingly, in the present year also, we hold that the disallowance to the extent of 70% of the expenses should be deleted and in this manner, we confirm the disallowance to the extent of 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Revenue could not point out any difference in facts in the present year and therefore, we do not find any reason to take a contrary view. This ground is rejected. 117. Ground No. 27 is as under: 27. That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II, Kanpur has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of ₹ 44,284/- ignoring that these expenses did not relate to the business of the assessee. 118. Learned D. R. of the Revenue supported the assessment order whereas learned A. R. of the assessee supported the order of learned CIT(A). He also submitted that this issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal order in assessee s own case for assessment year 1993-94 and 1994-95 and copy of relevant order is available on pages 200 to 231 of the paper book. 119. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that this issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal order in assessee s own case for assessment year 1993-94 and 1994-95 and Learned D.R. of the Revenue could not point out any difference in facts in the present year and therefore, we do not find any reason to take a contrary view. This ground is rejected. 12 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der that out of foreign travelling expenses in respect of four spouses of directors of the assessee company, the expenses of ₹ 17,301/- regarding Mrs. R. Singhania is allowable otherwise also because she is a qualified Doctor and was looking after the hospital for employees at Kota plant of the assessee company. The CIT(A) has confirmed this disallowance in respect of expenses of Mrs. R. Singhania also but in our considered opinion, apart from being spouse of the director, Mrs. R. Singhania is an employee of the assessee company also and moreover while deciding the similar issue in assessment year 1987-88, it is held by the Tribunal in that year as per Para 216 of its order that this issue regarding travelling expenses of spouse of the directors is covered in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal order for assessment year 1983-84 and 1984-85. Since no difference in facts could be pointed out by Learned D.R. of the Revenue, we delete this disallowance by respectfully following the Tribunal order. Accordingly ground No. 2(a) is allowed. 127. Regarding ground No. 2(b) of the appeal, Learned A.R. of the assessee reiterated the same contentions which were raised before the CIT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on guest house is confirmed in the present year also. Ground No. 3(a) is rejected. 132. In assessment year 1987-88, ground No. 13(b) regarding ad hoc disallowance of ₹ 1,00,000/- being depreciation on other assets of guest house was decided by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee by following the Tribunal order in assessee s own case for assessment year 1985-86. Accordingly, in the present year also, the disallowance of ₹ 1,00,000/- being depreciation on other assets of guest house is deleted and accordingly, ground 3(b) is allowed. 133. Regarding ground No. 3(c) i.e. in respect of ad hoc disallowance of ₹ 1,00,000/- towards other maintenance expenses of guest house, Learned A.R. of the assessee reiterated the same contentions which were raised before CIT(A). Learned D. R. of the Revenue supported the order of learned CIT(A). 134. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that it is noted by CIT(A) on page No. 20 of his order that it was the submission of Learned A.R. of the assessee before him that as against the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer of ₹ 10.02 lac, the assessee has already offered the disallowance of ₹ 1 lac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ). 142. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that in assessment year 1987-88, this issue was decided by the Tribunal as per Para 223 of its order against the assessee by following the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Britannia Industries Ltd. vs. CIT [2005] 278 ITR 546 (SC) and therefore, by respectfully following this judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court, this issue is decided against the assessee. This ground is rejected. 143. Ground No. 6 is as under: 6. Interest payable on additional retention price of Cement Not allowing ₹ 44,77,866/- towards interest payable on additional retention price of cement by not appreciating the facts of the ease. 144. It was submitted by Learned A.R. of the assessee that in assessment year 1987-88, this issue was decided by learned CIT(A) in favour of the assessee and against this decision of CIT(A), Revenue filed appeal before the Tribunal and this issue was raised by the Revenue in its appeal as per ground No. 41 and therefore, in the present year also, this issue may be decided on similar line. 145. Learned D. R. of the Revenue supported the order of learned CIT(A). 146. We ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... such asset was put to use for business purposes, depreciation cannot be allowed. We do not find any reason to interfere in the order of CIT(A) on this issue because the assessee has not established these aspects. This ground is rejected. 150. Ground No. 8 is as under: 8. Interest Paid In not allowing a sum of ₹ 1,05,733/- being the amount of genuine interest paid by appellant. 151. It was submitted by Learned A.R. of the assessee that similar issue was raised by the assessee in its appeal for assessment year 1987-88 as per ground No. 6 in that year and therefore, in the present year also, this issue may be decided on similar line. 152. Learned D. R. of the Revenue supported the order of learned CIT(A). 153. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that in assessment year 1987-88, this issue regarding confirmation of disallowance without appreciating that the payment of interest and withholding tax on interest paid to various foreign suppliers were neither penalty nor fine and they were compensatory in character. In that year, the issue was decided by the Tribunal against the assessee as per Para No. 239 in that year. Accordingly, in the pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal order for assessment year 1988-89. Accordingly, in the present year also, this issue is decided against the assessee. This ground is rejected. 162. Ground No. 11 is as under: 11. Employees Welfare Expenses (d) Not allowing a sum of ₹ 5,29,257/- holding it to be Entertainment Expenses. (e) Confirming disallowance of ₹ 1,14,098/- as unconnected with business. (f) Not allowing a sum of ₹ 6,645/- towards depreciation on WDV on items capitalized in earlier years. 163. It was submitted by Learned A.R. of the assessee that similar issue was raised by the assessee in its appeal for assessment year 1987-88 as per ground No. 9 in that year and therefore, in the present year also, this issue may be decided on similar line. 164. Learned D. R. of the Revenue supported the order of learned CIT(A). 165. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that identical issue was raised in assessment year 1987-88 as per ground No. 9 and as per Para 251 of the Tribunal order and in that year, this issue was decided against the assessee. Accordingly, in the present year also, this issue is decided against the assessee. This ground is reject ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issue may be decided on similar line. 173. Learned D. R. of the Revenue supported the order of learned CIT(A). 174. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that in assessment year 1987-88, the issue in dispute was regarding confirming disallowance of ₹ 6,356/- holding it to be entertainment expenditure and deleted the disallowance of ₹ 2,51,313/- being expenditure on presentation articles to the extent of 30% of the total expenditure. In the present year also, the issues in dispute are similar i.e. Disallowance of ₹ 1,65,585/- by holding it to be entertainment expenditure and upholding disallowance to the extent of 30% of total disallowance. In assessment year 1987-88, the first issue was decided in favour of the assessee as per Para 277 of the Tribunal order in that year and part (b) of the disallowance was decided by the Tribunal against the assessee as per Para 230 of the Tribunal order in that year. Accordingly, in the present year also, part (a) of ground No. 13 is allowed whereas 13(b) is rejected. 175. Ground No. 14 is as under: 14. Product Development Expenses In not allowing ₹ 1,73,977/- (being 50% of ₹ 3,47,95 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
