9911796707
TMI Blog1981 (12) TMI 56X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me before the CIT (Appeals), he confirmed the action of the ITO on the short ground that the assessee's gratuity fund had not been approved by the CIT, Haryana, Rohtak, till the day the CIT (Appeals) heard the appeal of the assessee and as such, according to him, it was not allowable under the provisions of s. 40A(7) (b) (ii). Contesting this action of the CIT (Appeals), the ld. counsel for the assessee Sh. D.K. Gupta drew our attention to the application for approval of the gratuity fund u/r 109 made by the assessee as long as on 22nd September, 1975 and he submitted that it is for none of the faults of the assessee that the fund was not approved by the CIT, therefore, the assessee's claim should have been allowed. When a copy of the said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ber, 1973 was worked out as per actuarial valuation at Rs. 1,47,910 which is at page 4 of the assessee's compilation. He also drew our attention to page 4 of the assessee's compilation wherein it was written to the ITO that according to cl. 40A(7)(b)(3), a sum equivalent to 50% of the provision was to be deposited before 1st April, 1976 and the balance admissible amount as reduced by the amount utilised was paid by 1st April, 1977 the assessee's provision as on 1st April, 1976 amounted to Rs. 2,14,908.75, 50% of which i.e. Rs. 1,07,454.38 was deposited as under: Rs. "Deposited in Indian Overseas Bank, Yamunanagar, on 30th Dec., 1975 5,000.00 Deposited in Indian Overseas Bank, Yamunanagar, on 29th Mar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the issue is covered against the revenue as per consistent view of the Tribunal. 5. The third and the last ground in this appeal is in respect of disallowance of Rs. 4,297 and Rs. 9,000 claimed on account of Dealers and Suppliers mess expenses and Sale Promotion expense respectively. In this respect, the lower authorities while disallowing the claim of the assessee placed their reliance on the case of CIT vs. Gheru Lal Bal Chand 1977 CTR (P H) 150 : (1978) 111 ITR 134 (P H). The ld. authorised representative of the assessee while contesting this action of the lower authorities, drew our attention to pages 7 to 9 of the paperbook which gives details of sales promotion expenses and of dealers and suppliers mess expenses. He submitted t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
