Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2009 (12) TMI 17

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t any benefit which it had already received deduction in the earlier years for the assessment year 1972-73 – mere writing back of a liability is not amount to cessation of liability – Amount of bonus paid on cash basis as well as on accrual basis allowed - 97 of 1984 - - - Dated:- 16-12-2009 - Case :- INCOME TAX REFERENCE No. - Petitioner Counsel :- S.C.,B Agrawal Respondent Counsel :- Sri Vikram Gulati Hon'ble Prakash Krishna,J. Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Nigam,J. (Delivered by Prakash Krishna) The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad 'B' Bench Allahabad has referred the following questions for the opinion of this Court under Section 256 (1) of the Income Tax Act:- 1. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 976-77 for a sum of Rs.1,65,516. The bill for the same was raised by the supplier in two parts. One bill was dated 31.3.1975 for a sum of Rs.1,20,013 and the other bill was dated 16.3.1976 for a sum of Rs.44,782. The contractors who carried out the replacement of the sheets raised bills for the work done in two portions. The first portion was covered by the bill dated 22.12.1975 by which G.C. sheets worth Rs.1,20,013 were replaced and the another portion was covered by the bills dated 16.3.1976 and 24.7.1975, whereby sheets aggregating to the value of Rs.44,781 were replaced. Therefore, the assessee claimed the deduction of Rs.1,66,516 for the assessment year 1976-77, which the I.A.C. (Assessment) rejected holding it to be capital in nature .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rned standing counsel for the department. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. Taking the first question first, it may be noted that in para 6 of the order, the Tribunal has found that the assessee's case is fully covered by the ratio laid down in the case of Kalyanji (supra). It has been further found that the decision of this Court in the case of Kanodia Cold-storage (supra) also supports the stand taken on behalf of the assessee. It consequently decided the said issue in favour of the assessee. However, he referred the Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sri Mangayarkarasi Mills P. Ltd. : (2009) 315 ITR 114 (SC) in support of his contention that repairs amounts capital expenditure. The relied upon decision in our considered view is .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... able amount of money. But the amount of money spent alone cannot be a factor to determine whether the expenditure falls under "Current Repairs" or not. As held by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Nathmal Venkatlal Parik and Co. Vs. CIT (1980) 122 ITR 168, it is nature of the repairs carried out by the assessee that matters for grant of deduction. In this fact situation, we have no reason not to agree with the findings recorded by the Tribunal. The department has failed to discharge its burden that the said question of law was wrongly decided by the Tribunal. Consequently, question No.1 is decided in affirmative i.e. in favour of the assessee and against the department. So far as the second question is concerned, the Tribunal has dealt .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... f the judgment of Gujrat High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Standard Ratiators Pvt. Limited : (2006) 286 ITR 207. Even otherwise also, the learned standing counsel could not place before us any material to show that the order of Tribunal suffers in any manner with any illegality or irregularity. It may be noted that the assessee had actually paid a sum of Rs.4,62,773/- as bonus and claimed deduction of the same. The I.A.C. (assessment) allowed deduction of the above sum but disallowed the assessee's claim for deduction of Rs.4,26,500/- which was made on accrual basis. The said deduction has been allowed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal found that the stand taken by the assessee is well-founded and should be accepted. Simi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates