9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (10) TMI 80X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on motor cars respectively in order to calculate the deductions allowable under s. 37(3A) of the IT Act. The assessee filed appeal against the above additions of the ITO for the purpose of computation of disallowances and the CIT(A) has deleted both the additions. As regards Rs. 37,069, the CIT(A) has observed that the ITO has included the same by considering the same as `sales expenses'. There is no provision in s. 37(3A) and s. 37(3B) for making the disallowance out of expenses connected with sales. Expenses incurred on `sales promotion' only are to be taken into consideration for making the disallowances. In the instant case the amount paid for inspection of certain goods cannot be considered to constitute sales promotion expenses and, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Cal)/87 order passed on 12th May, 1988 by the ITAT. 5. The learned authorised representative of the assessee, on the other hand, relied on the order of the CIT(A) and stated that Rs. 37,069 are not sales promotion expenses, but, are selling expenses. The assessee supplied flush doors and block doors mainly to the departments of Govt. of India. The expenditure is not sales promotion and is, therefore, allowable in nature and the CIT(A) is justified in deleting the same from the purview of s. 37(3A). 6. As regards the expenses of Rs. 1,98,782 for repairs of the cars, the same is clearly allowable as a deduction for computation of 37(3A) deductions. So, in this view of the matter, the CIT(A) is justified and the order should be upheld. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. Chase Bright Steel Ltd. (1989) CTR (Bom) 60 : (1989) 177 ITR 124 (Bom), that rent for the premises used as a guest house and the expenses on repairs of furniture are deductible under ss. 30 and 31 and they cannot be disallowable under s. 37(3A). On the same analogy, we hold that repairs to motor cars, which are allowable under s. 31 of the IT Act cannot be taken into account for the purpose of computing the disallowance under s. 37(3A) of the IT Act. Respectfully, following the above cited Bombay High Court decision and the various Tribunal's decisions of the Calcutta Benches cited above, we hold that the CIT(A) is justified in deleting the amounts mentioned above and we accordingly uphold his order on this point. 7(a). The next ground ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owed in such earlier years. On this ground, the CIT(A) deleted the addition. 8. The learned Departmental Representative in the course of the hearing of the appeal contended that the CIT(A) is not justified in deleting the addition without appreciating the facts involved in the issue and without considering s. 43(6) of the IT Act, which defines the written down value. 9. The learned authorised representative of the assessee, on the other hand, contended that the CIT(A)'s action in deleting the addition on account of depreciation is justified for the reason mentioned in the appellate order itself. He has stated that the ITO is not justified in stating that no details were filed before him, but, in fact, details were filed before him and i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
