9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (2) TMI 38X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal has stated the case and referred the following question to this court : " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that a sum of Rs. 7,971 did not represent entertainment expenses and they were not hit by the provisions of section 37(2B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? " The facts as found by the Tribunal are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ces which were provided to " veoparies " and employees of the firm who used to come to do business and that the expenditure was not at all in the nature of entertainment expenditure as contemplated by section 37(2B). The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the assessee was a commission agent who is required customarily to provide meagre and modest meals to its constituents and, in that process, a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntum being relatively high, the expense could not be treated as 'entertainment expenditure' in the circumstances of this particular line of business". This court did not go into the larger question as to what is the meaning and full scope and extent of the expression "entertainment expenditure". Shri Gupta has vehemently contended that this court did not consider the full impact and effect of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
