TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the disallowance of Rs. 8,000 out of mess expenses was justified; (ii) whether the disallowance of Rs. 30,000 out of expenditure on consumption of stores and coal was justified; (iii) whether the disallowance of Rs. 70,000 out of expenditure on consumption of hexine was justified.
Issue (i): Whether the disallowance of Rs. 8,000 out of mess expenses was justified.
Analysis: The allowability of the expenditure depended on whether it was incurred for the purposes of business and whether the claim was genuine. The finding recorded by the Tribunal was a finding of fact and was not shown to be perverse.
Conclusion: The disallowance was upheld and the issue was answered in favour of the Revenue.
Issue (ii): Whether the disallowance of Rs. 30,000 out of expenditure on consumption of stores and coal was justified.
Analysis: The nature and genuineness of the expenditure were factual matters. The Tribunal's conclusion rested on appreciation of the material and did not suffer from perversity.
Conclusion: The disallowance was upheld and the issue was answered in favour of the Revenue.
Issue (iii): Whether the disallowance of Rs. 70,000 out of expenditure on consumption of hexine was justified.
Analysis: The question whether the expenditure was for business purposes and was genuine was essentially factual. No perversity was found in the Tribunal's determination.
Conclusion: The disallowance was upheld and the issue was answered in favour of the Revenue.
Final Conclusion: All the referred questions were answered against the assessee, and the reference was disposed of accordingly.
Ratio Decidendi: Inference as to the allowability and genuineness of business expenditure is a question of fact, and the High Court will not interfere with a Tribunal's finding unless it is shown to be perverse.
TaxTMI 
