9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (7) TMI 114X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the disallowance of Rs. 37,820 made under rule 6B(3) of the Income-tax Rules ? (2) Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in deleting the disallowance made under section 37(3A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? " The assessee, Ayurved Sewashram Ltd., Udaipur, is a private limited firm. For the assessment year 1985-86, the assessee claimed an expenditure of Rs. 1,48,388 under the head " Sales conference ". This amount of Rs. 1,48,388 includes the expenditure of Rs. 37,820 which relates to the presentation of the watches costing more than Rs. 50 each, to the dealers who attended the conference. The assessee also claimed an amount of Rs. 6,451 being 20 per cent. of the total expenditure of Rs. 32,256 spent on the repairs an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r and even otherwise the tax effect is less than Rs. 30,000 and, therefore, as per the circular of the Board dated July 12, 1984, the question should not be referred. Aggrieved by the order dated May 23, 1995, passed by the Tribunal refusing to refer the questions of law for the opinion of this court, the Revenue has presented the present application under section 256(2) of the Act for directing the Tribunal to state the case and refer the questions of law mentioned in the application. Question No. 1 : The first question relates to the deletion of the disallowance of Rs. 37,820 made under rule 6B(3) of the Income-tax Rules towards the cost of the watches. The Tribunal, while deciding this issue, relied upon the decisions of the Bombay a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the Revenue under section 256(2) and refused to direct the Tribunal to state the case and refer the question for the opinion of the High Court. The Tribunal was, therefore, right in refusing to refer this question also for the opinion of this court. The finding arrived at by the Tribunal is purely a finding of fact and no referable question of law arises in the case. In this view of the matter, the Tribunal was right in refusing to refer this question also for the opinion of this court. The Tribunal also refused to refer these questions on the ground that the tax effect in the case is less than Rs. 30,000 and, therefore, as per the circular of the Board, the question should not be referred. The refusal by the Tribunal on this ground ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
