9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (7) TMI 30X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Income-tax Act, 1961, seeking a direction to the Appellate Tribunal to refer the following question of law to this court for opinion : " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in law in holding that the annuity of Rs. 1,26,000 paid to the Balaji Trust is not allowable as revenue expenditure in the hands of the firm ? " The assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... three months after the end of each accounting year. The agreement was in force for five years from April 1, 1984. The assessee-firm claimed deduction in respect of the said annuity payment of Rs. 1,26,000, on the ground that it was revenue expenditure. The Income-tax Officer refused to accept the claim on the ground that there was no evidence to show that Balaji Trust was given distribution by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the claim for deduction cannot be allowed in the hands of the firm, treating it as revenue expenditure. Accordingly, the Income-tax Officer, by an order dated February 28, 1986, rejected the claim of annuity for deduction. Having been unsuccessful before the Income-tax Officer, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The learned appellate authority dismissed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tated that Balaji Trust had expressed its difficulty in mobilising the funds and, therefore, with their consent Sarabhai Chemicals agreed to supply stocks from April 1, 1984. Therefore, it was a transaction between the assessee and the distributor to whom it directly supplied the material earlier. The Tribunal found that there was no evidence to establish the basis for transfer of distribution rig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
