9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (11) TMI 248X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessing Officer has considered in para 9 to disallow the claim for deduction for liquidated damages/bad debts of ₹ 2,65,000 but the same amount has not been included in total disallowance in para 14 of the assessment order. 2. The Assessing Officer has incorrectly allowed claim for a deduction of ₹ 88,870 being provisions for liability relating to customers' claim for reimbursement on account of the defective products. 3. Total expenditure of ₹ 19,500 duly incurred by the assessee for realising capital should have been disallowed by the Assessing Officer considering it as capital expenditure, but the Assessing Officer failed to do so. 4. The assessee had paid bonus in excess of ₹ 70,873 according ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0 paid to C.C. Chokshi Co. and the claim of bonus which was not in accordance with the provisions of Bonus Act. 6. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the facts on record. As regards the liquidated damages/bad debts of ₹ 2,65,000 we find that though the Assessing Officer has considered in para 9 of the assessment order to disallow the claim for deduction but the same amount has not been correctly included in the total disallowance in para 14 of the assessment order. The amount of ₹ 2,65,000 was not debited to P L account but the same was debited to provision for doubtful debts account . Since the same has not been deducted while computing the profits there is no question of adding the same. We further find ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Listing fees paid to Ahmedabad Stock Exchange ₹ 3,500 Paid for company law matters ₹ 8,000 Regarding listing fees paid to Bombay Stock Exchange and Ahmedabad Stock Exchange such listing fees are admissible according to Board's Circular No. F.No. 10/67/65-IT(AI) dt. 26th Aug., 1965 (reproduced on page 1427 of Second Vol. of Income-tax Law by Chaturvedi Pithisaria (Third Edition). These instructions of the Board are binding on the Assessing Officer and we accordingly hold that he rightly allowed the listing fees of ₹ 8,000 and ₹ 3,500 paid to Bombay Stock Exchange and Ahmedabad Stock Exchange respectively. 9. As regards the fee of ₹ 8,000 from the details filed before the learned Assessing Off ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. There is no categorical provision in the Payment of Bonus Act nullyfying all other kinds of bonus, nor does such a conclusion arise by necessary implication. In CIT vs. P. Alikunju, M.A. Nazir Cashew Industries (1987) 62 CTR (Ker) 206 : (1987) 166 ITR 611 (Ker) the Hon'ble Kerala High Court held that the bonus in excess of what was required under the payment of Bonus Act, 1965, specifically in terms of second proviso to s. 36(1)(ii) may be allowed on satisfaction of certain conditions. It has been held by the Delhi Tribunal in the case of Gem India Ltd. vs. IAC (1986) 26 TTJ (Del) 613 : (1986) 19 ITD 540 (Del) that where the assessee-company was paying bonus at the rate of 20% to its employees as a stipulation of employment, i.e., a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s not excessive; the company has paid bonus to all the employees as in the past; the payment of bonus has been made in keeping with the terms of settlement arrived at by the company with the association of the employees. 11. In the light of the above discussion we hold that the learned CIT is not justified in invoking his jurisdiction under s. 263 in this case. We stand supported by the order of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gabrial India Ltd. (supra) where it has been held that order sought to be revised must be erroneous and also by virtue of its being erroneous prejudice must have been caused to interest of the Revenue. Sec. 263 does not visualise substitution of judgment of Commissioner for that of ITO, unless the deci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
