9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (5) TMI 655X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s for the company, and it was found that the deduction had resulted in remuneration to the relatives of the directors of the company. The guarantee commission was paid for securing finances, and thus the deduction was upheld. In view of the matter, de hors the technicalities, even on merits, in view of the judgment of this Court in Ayurvedic Sevashram's case [ 1985 (7) TMI 45 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] , the finding on this question requires no interference by this Court. Claim deduction in respect of capital expenditure incurred on R D of assessee's business - machines, acquired for the purpose of R D - HELD THAT:- We find is, that the orders are based on the basis of orders passed in earlier years, and in the basic order, w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ls, the same are consequently dismissed. - N.P. GUPTA AND KISHAN SWAROOP CHAUDHARI, JJ. For the Petitioner : K.K. Bissa For the Respondent : Dinesh Mehta JUDGMENT N.P. Gupta, J. : These 10 appeals by the Revenue are relating to different assessment years. Identical questions have been raised by the Revenue in all the 10 appeals, but then in Appeal Nos. 51, 52 of 2005, 25, 38 and 40 of 2007, it was found by this Court that, as the question suggested by the Revenue, being about admissibility of the deduction on account of guarantee commission, paid by the assessee to its directors and relatives, as decided by the learned authorities below, does not give rise to any substantial question of law, and the appeals had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... declined to be framed, it being pure finding of fact not giving rise to substantial question of law. It was observed that in that bunch of appeals being Appeal Nos. 63, 64, 65, 66 and 118 of 2007, that it appears that attention was invited to the fact, that in the matters earlier to the assessment years in question, the Division Bench had not framed the question on the finding, that as to on what terms and conditions the creditor was persuaded to advance loans, but then it was observed, that reliance was placed by the Revenue on a decision of Supreme Court in Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [1967] 43 ITR 57 (SC), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held, that so far final conclusion of the admissibility of an allowance is conce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nds already covered by a decision of this Court, in CIT vs. Ayurvedic Sevashram (P) Ltd. [1986] 54 CTR (Raj.) 119 : [1986] 159 ITR 112 (Raj.), wherein, on facts also, the assessee company had paid guarantee commission to the relatives of the directors, who had secured finances for the company, and it was found that the deduction had resulted in remuneration to the relatives of the directors of the company. The guarantee commission was paid for securing finances, and thus the deduction was upheld. 4. In that view of the matter, de hors the technicalities, even on merits, in view of the judgment of this Court in Ayurvedic Sevashram's case (supra ), the finding on this question requires no interference by this Court. 5. Then we come ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iew, it cannot be said that the deduction is allowable, without holding any enquiry, into the relevant question. It has been found by the learned CIT(A) that the assessee does hold recognition from the concerned Department of the Government, to which it is regularly furnishing tri-annual returns, and the recognition did subsist during all the relevant assessment years. 7. In view of the above discussion, the question as framed is required to be answered in affirmative, i.e. that the learned Tribunal was correct in allowing the deduction. Obviously it is answered against the Revenue and in favour of assessee. The net result is, that we do not find any force in any of these appeals, the same are consequently dismissed. - - TaxTMI - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
