9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (3) TMI 29X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n order of this court under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has referred the following questions : " (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the repair charges of Rs. 15,904 on the car belonging to the wife of the director should be allowed as business expenditure of the assessee ? and (2) Whether ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... borne by the company and subsequently ratified in the board's resolution. When the assessee wanted that expenditure to be allowed as business expenditure, the Income-tax Officer disallowed the claim on the ground that it was incurred for non-business considerations, viz., to relieve the director from his personal responsibility. Aggrieved by that disallowance, the respondent-company preferred an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -tax Officer has to be sustained instead of the view taken by the other two authorities. On the other hand, Mr. K. C. Rajappa, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, submitted that the Tribunal has taken the correct view stating that in any event the expenditure cannot be said to be not incidental to the assessee's business. He also brought to our notice various circumstances taken in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny. Undoubtedly, on the facts in this case, it has been established so . . ." The facts we have stated above are not in dispute. The view taken by the Tribunal, on the facts of this case, appears to be in consonance with the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Malayalam Plantations Ltd. [1964] 53 ITR 140, wherein the Supreme Court has held that the expression "for the purpose of business" oc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
