9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (1) TMI 100X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion with suppliers of tin plate to ensure continued import of the required quality. The wife of Shri H.N. Kapadia accompanied him in this tour. On the travelling of Mrs. Kapadia a sum of Rs. 37,881 by way of airfare and Rs. 9,105 by way of other expenses totalling Rs. 46,986 were incurred. The assessee claimed this amount as an admissible expenditure under section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). In support of the claim, the assessee furnished copy of the resolution of the board of directors dated 27-9-1978, permitting Mr. H.N. Kapadia to take Mrs. Kapadia with him. The ITO observed that expenditure in the case of Mrs. Kapadia was 'not at all expenditure necessary or incidental to the business of the (assessee) company' and di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... siness of the assessee. He further submitted that correspondence with the RBI could not be produced because papers were misplaced. The learned departmental representative, on the other hand, relied on the decisions in Modi Industries Ltd. v. CIT [1977] 110 ITR 855 (All.) and Cooper Engg. Ltd. v. CIT [1982] 135 ITR 597 (Bom.) in support of his contention that expenses in question were not laid wholly and exclusively for business. 4. We have considered the rival submissions. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has considered this question in proper perspective and we find no error in the reasons given by him. In order to qualify for deduction, the expenses should have been incurred wholly and exclusively for business. Mr. H.F. Shah, senior e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase also Mrs. Kapadia not rendered any service in connection with the business of the assessee. The services in connection with the business were rendered by the senior executive, Shri H.F. Shah. Mrs. Kapadia rendered only personal service to Mr. Kapadia because of his illness. In the circumstances, the expenses on Mrs. Kapadia were clearly not allowable as business expenses. 6. The next ground relates to the assessee's claim for multiple shift allowance. The assessee had three units at three different places, viz., Anand Kanjri and Mehsana, for manufacture of tin containers. These units had worked different number of days by way of multiple shifts. The details are as follows: Place where unit is No. of days for which the unit wo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing and for triple shift working shall be made separately in the proportion which the number of days for which the concern worked double shift or triple shift, as the case may be, bears to the normal number of working days during the previous year ;" 8. The contention is that even if one of the three units had worked triple shift, it would mean that the 'concern' had worked triple shift and, as such, triple shift allowance for all the units is admissible under the above provision. We have carefully perused the above provision and we are satisfied that interpretation sought to be put by the learned representative of the assessee on the words of said provision is wholly unsupportable. We do not accept the said contention. We find that the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
