1978 (5) TMI 25

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nt year 1972-73 the assessee, who is a commission agent, claimed deduction of Rs. 13,865 on account of dharmada, gaushala and pathshala expenses. He also claimed deduction of Rs. 5,297 on account of messing expenses for his constituents. The ITO disallowed the first claim in toto but allowed the claim in respect of messing expenses to the extent of half. On appeal, the Tribunal, relying upon the F .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... f dharmada, gaushala and pathshala could not be treated as part of the trading receipt of the assessee ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in confirming the AAC's order that the messing expenses claimed by the assessee were not entertainment expenses ?" Ths first question is covered by the decision of a Full Bench of this court in Thakur .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 1979] 116 ITR 292. These two decisions have differed from the view taken by this court while a Full Bench of the Kerala High Court in CIT v. Veeraiah Reddiar [1977] 106 ITR 610 has followed the decision of this court. The previous decision of this court is, however, binding on us. For the assessment year 1972-73, the relevant provisions of s. 37(2A) were amended and no amount was admissible under .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X