2015 (3) TMI 1395

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... by the assessee firm which was not an allowable business expenditure u/s 37(1) Decided in favor of revenue - ITA No. : 1885/Mum/2012 - - - Dated:- 4-3-2015 - SHRI B R BASKARAN AND SHRI VIVEK VARMA, JJ. Appellant by: Shri Dharmendra Singh Respondent by: Shri Pavan Kumar Beerla ORDER VIVEK VARMA, J. The appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A) 3, Mu .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ssee firm paid ₹ 10,11,868/- to Mrs. Maneck J. Gagrat, spouse of the deceased partner and claimed the same as revenue expenditure u/s 37. It was explained by the assessee that the amount was paid as per clause 12.4 of the partnership deed and justified the claim of relying on the decision of CIT vs Mulla Mulla Craigie, Blunt and Caroe, reported in 190 ITR 884 (Bom). 4. At the time of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X