1994 (10) TMI 14

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ,452 was disallowed by the Income-tax Officer. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner confirmed the addition made by the Income-tax Officer under this head. On further appeal before the Tribunal, the assessee contended that the motor car was used for the purpose of earning agricultural income and there is no element of personal expenditure in the case of a limited company. Further, it was submitted that the car is to be used by the manager and employees and, therefore, the entire expenditure ought to have been allowed. However, the Tribunal confirmed the order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, in view of the fact that the assessee has not maintained a log book and trip sheet. It is against this order that the assessee .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... antiate the claim made by the assessee. In the absence of evidence to show that the assessee has paid the profession tax, it is not possible to allow a sum of Rs. 376 claimed under this head. Hence, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal on this item of expenditure also. The assessee also claimed deduction of Rs. 25,000 under the head "rubber nursery". The Income-tax Officer disallowed the expenditure on the ground that it is of capital nature. According to the Assessing Officer, the assessee has not shown the sale of plants from the nursery. Therefore, according to the Assessing Officer, the expenditure incurred would be in the nature of capital. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner sustained the disallowa .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e for the Department to allow the same as deduction on any of the grounds as suggested by the assessee, at the stage of second appeal. In view of the foregoing factual position, we have no other alternative but to uphold the order of the Tribunal on this aspect. Accordingly, we are not inclined to interfere with the same. The assessee also claimed expenditure incurred towards the medical centre amounting to Rs. 47,533 and depreciation of Rs. 14,037 in respect of Bharat Medical Centre, which is a hospital at Trivandrum in Kerala State. Following the earlier order of the Tribunal in the case of the same assessee, the assessing authority refused to allow the said amount as deduction. On second appeal, the Tribunal upheld the order passed by .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X