1992 (9) TMI 72 - HC - Income Tax

High Court declines to refer certain questions back to Tribunal, directs consideration of commission deduction under section 35B. Trust validity affirmed, inauguration expenses deductible as advertisement costs. No costs awarded.

The High Court declined to refer certain questions back to the Tribunal for further review, as they were either deemed unnecessary or had already been ... Business Expenditure, Export Market Development Allowance, Weighted Deduction Issues:1. Confirmation of deletion of specific payments by the Tribunal.2. Recording of specific finding by the Tribunal on relief of land development cases.3. Validity of Escorts Employees' Welfare Trust and related additions/deletions.4. Deletion of advertisement expenses by the Tribunal.5. Allowance of relief under section 35B by the Tribunal.Analysis:1. The petitioner sought reference of specific questions regarding the Tribunal's decision on the addition of payments made to individuals and firms. The High Court decided not to call for question No. 1, as a similar issue was addressed in a separate order. Regarding question No. 2, the Court found it unnecessary as the Tribunal had already allowed the deduction as a revenue expenditure.2. The High Court deemed question No. 3(a) as a factual finding by the Tribunal, affirming the validity of the Trust. Consequently, question No. 3(b) was also not called for review. In relation to question No. 4, the Court upheld the Tribunal's decision that the expenses incurred for the inauguration ceremony were deductible as advertisement expenses.3. Question No. 5 involved the allowance of relief under section 35B by the Tribunal. The Court found the first part of the question self-evident but directed the Tribunal to refer a specific question regarding the deduction of commission paid to a particular entity. The Court ordered the Tribunal to state the case on this specific issue for further review.4. Overall, the High Court reviewed each question raised by the petitioner and determined whether they needed further examination. While some questions were deemed unnecessary due to factual findings or previous decisions, the Court directed a specific question to be referred back for review. No costs were awarded in this judgment.