9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 635X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urt was delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam, J. ) These Appeals by the assessees are directed against the common order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'A' Bench, Chennai, (for short, ITAT), dated 25.08.2006, in I.T. (SS) A.Nos.133 and 134 /Mds/2002, for the Block Assessment Period from 01.04.1988 to 20.09.1998. 2. T.C. (A) No.857 of 2008, has been admitted on the following substanti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncome disclosed for the assessment year 1999-2000? 4. The issue involved in both the Tax Cases lie in a very narrow compass. 5. The apprehension of the petitioners/assessees is that, they would be taxed twice for the same Block Assessment Period, i.e., 01.04.1988 to 20.09.1998. This apprehension is because, the assessment for the period from 01.04.1988 to 31.03.1997, is based upon the materials, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai Vs. A.R. Enterprises, reported in [(2013) 29 Taxmann. Come 50 (SC)] fully supports the stand taken by the Revenue. 8. We have heard Mr.Philip George, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.T.R.Senthil Kumar, the learned Central Government Standing Counsel for the respondent. 9. In our opinion ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ; and whether the payment effected by them for acquiring the membership in a Social Club should be allowed, and after considering the factual matrix and re-appreciating, what was placed before the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, in our opinion, rightly held that the personal expenses cannot be allowed as business expenditure, more so, when there was no evidence so as to prove that the membersh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
