9911796707
TMI Blog1980 (4) TMI 148X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... us year ended 30th June, 1976. 2. During the year assessee took on hire two flats for a period of 4 years each. One flat was for the Managing Director Mr. Jha and the other for the director Mr. Sud. For arranging the letting out of the said flats the assessee paid to the broker concerned brokerage which was of one month's rent. The amount so paid came to Rs. 3,600. The ITO and the AAC have held ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t is revenue in nature. We also do not agree with the departmental representative that the said payment has to be treated as perquisite, for disallowance under s. 40(C) of the Act. 4. The ITO disallowed Rs. 10,596 under the head travelling expenses as according to him the disallowance was in accordance with r. 6D of the IT Rules, 1962. On appeal the AAC, after scrutiny has upheld the disallowan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has been used for the business purposes of the assessee-company. The possibility of the car being used for the personal purposes by the directors could not be ruled out when they have no car of their own. As such, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the present case is a fit case for disallowance of a part of the motor-car expenses. The estimation of the disallowance by the AAC is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the IT Act, 1961 on the basis of the total capital employed without any deduction in respect of borrowed loan and/or current liabilities". The ground involved a pure and simple question of law and the necessary facts for deciding if the same are already on record. The question goes to the root of the case. 11. On the additional ground we have heard both the representatives for the assessee a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s concerned, the arguments by the parties are the same as were canvassed before the (Tribunal) (Calcutta Bench A) earlier in ITA No. 2491 and 2972 (Cal) of 1977-78 decided on 12th April, 1979. The factual position in the case of the assessee is similar to that of the above case. We have perused the aforesaid earlier order of the Tribunal. For the reasons stated therein, with which we agree, we dir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
