TMI Blog1982 (8) TMI 96X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ITAT in the case of M/s Geoffrey Manners Co. Ltd. (I.T,A. No. 1296(Bom) of 1976-77) that the provision of s. 40(c) and not 40A(5) are applicable to the case of a Directors employee of a company. To the same effect is the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Addl. CIT vs. Tarun Commercial Mills Ltd. 1977 CTR (Guj) 21: (1978) 113 ITR 745 (Guj). Since the impugned order of the CIT(A) is in conformity with the aforesaid decisions of the Tribunal and the Gujarat High Court, we uphold the same. 3. It is stated by the ld. Rep. of the assessee before us that the CIT(A) has committed a clerical mistake in working the actual amount of disallowance under s. 40(c) for the asst. yr. 1977-78. The CIT(A) is directed to look into this asp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he same. On these facts, the assessee claimed weighted deduction under s. 35B in respect of the following expenditure: Sl. No. Assessment year Nature of expenditure Amount of expenditure (i) 1975-76 (a) Salary for staff Rs. 40,131 (ii) 1976-77 (b) Membership fee subscription Rs. 2,511 (iii) 1977-78 (c) Designing printing of folders Rs. 5,168 Salary for staff Rs. 27,687 Salary for staff Rs. 61,320 7. The ITO observed that the expenses in question were incurred by the assessee in connection with its normal business in India and that there was no evidence to prove that these expense ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was also not know whether the exporters really despatched their goods in the bags and containers supplied by the assessee to them or whether they resold the same in the markets in India. He further pointed out that, after holding that the supply of packing materials to the exporters did not tantamount to "exports", the CIT(A) was not justified in the granting weighted deduction to the assessee in respect of the expenditure in question; more so when there was no material on the record to suggest that the members of the staff, in respect of whose salaries weighted deduction was claimed, really looked after any export business of the assessee. He further submitted that the case of Indian Hotels Ltd. referred to by the CIT(A) in his order was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be held that the assessee has incurred the expenditure in question for advertisement or publicity outside India in respect of the goods, services or facilities in which the assessee deals or for obtaining information regarding the markets outside India for such goods, services or facilities or for furnishing to a person outside India samples of technical information for the promotion for the sale of such goods, etc. That being so, the assessee is not entitled to weighted deduction under sub-cls. (i),(ii) and (vi) of s. 35(b) as claimed by it. Further, there is no material on the record to prove that the assessee had entered into any agreement or arrangement with the exporters for exporting their goods in the bags and containers manufactures ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|