9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (7) TMI 65X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t its business income. Thus its claim that the authorities below ere not justified in allocating the expenditure incurred by the assessee on a proportionate basis partly against the income from business and partly against the income from other sources. The assessee had claimed expenditure towards salary, bonus, provident fund, gratuity etc. To the employees and also the other expenditure towards rent, printing stationery, general charges etc. Which amounted to Rs. 46,150 for the asst. yr. 1976-77 and Rs. 46,320 for the asst. yr. 1977-78. The ITO rejected the claim for deduction of the said expenditure on the ground that only expenditure incurred by way of interest was allowable in computing income from dividend u/s 56 of the Act r/w s. 57 o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... expenses allocated by the CIT (A). Now Shri Kaji submitted that the expenditure as claimed by the assessee towards maintenance of staff etc. was essentially expenditure incurred in carrying on of business. Such expenditure cannot be bifurcated against two head as of income particularly when the income form other source was income form dividend which hardly required maintenance of elaborate staff and administrative expenditure. The assessee is an investment company and making of investment therefore is its business though the head of income may be different in as much as the dividend is taxable as income form other sources. The source is the same namely business and the expenditure was therefore not required to be bifurcated. The ld. depart ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to allocation of income from interest against business income and dividend. So far as this ground is concerned it was fairly stated that the controversy is covered by the decisions of the Tribunal in ITA Nos. 941 to 944/Ahd/72-73 dt. 23rd Feb 1974 and ITA Nos. 1366 and 1367/Ahd/79 decided on 11th Sep 1980 in assessee's own case. No distinguishing features were placed before us therefore following the above cited decisions we decline to interfere with the decisions of the authorities below. 5. The last contention relates to the claim for deduction of fees paid to the chartered Accountant for both the years. The assessee had claimed Rs. 10,500 as Chartered Accountant's fees out of which Rs. 5,000 were allowed for each of the years by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
