9911796707
TMI Blog1981 (9) TMI 6X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t August, 1967, and 31st August, 1968. The questions that arise for our decision are as follows : " 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in allowing the claim of the assessee regarding the legal expenses amounting to Rs. 1,050 for A.Y. 1967-68, Rs. 4,599 for A.Y. 1968-69 and Rs. 890 for A.Y. 1969-70 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he case of the assessee is that in defending the suit he had to incur expenditure of Rs. 1,050 in the account period relevant to the assessment year 1967-68, Rs. 4,599 in the account period relevant to the assessment year 1968-69 and Rs. 890 in the account period relevant to the assessment year 1969-70. Further, in pursuance of the decree passed in that suit, the assessee had to pay Rs. 30,000 in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourt in L. U. Chhabda and Sons v. CIT [1967] 65 ITR 638 (SC). The Supreme Court, in that case, laid down that there is no such general principle that where an assessee carries on business ventures of the same character at different places it must be held as a matter of law that the ventures are part of a single business. It was further observed that whether different ventures carried on by the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot at all been considered by the Tribunal. In our opinion, therefore, the question of allowing the aforesaid amounts as business expenditure will have to be gone into by the Tribunal after evaluating the facts in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of L. M. Chhabda and Sons [1967] 65 ITR 638 (SC). For the reasons stated above, we answer the questions by saying that the Tri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
