TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal Adjusts Order for Leave Encashment, Corrects Tax Errors; Rs. 17,17,965 Disallowance Recalled for Review.</h1> <h3>Mohan Meakin Ltd. Versus Income-Tax Officer.</h3> Mohan Meakin Ltd. Versus Income-Tax Officer. - ITD 089, 179, TTJ 084, 001, Issues Involved:1. Provision for leave encashment of permanent employees.2. Expenditure on advertisement, publicity, running and maintenance of motor car u/s 37(3A).3. Excess collection of sales tax.4. Claim of excise duty.5. Expenditure on spare parts.6. Non-adjudication of disallowance of Rs. 17,17,965.Summary:1. Provision for Leave Encashment of Permanent Employees:The Tribunal found a mistake apparent from the record regarding the provision of Rs. 4,75,458 for leave encashment. The claim was allowable as per the Supreme Court's decision in Bharat Earth Movers v. CIT [2000] 245 ITR 428. The Tribunal modified its order dated 31-1-2001 and directed the Assessing Officer to allow the provision of Rs. 4,75,458.2. Expenditure on Advertisement, Publicity, Running and Maintenance of Motor Car u/s 37(3A):The Tribunal held that there was no mistake apparent from the record regarding the expenditure on advertisement, publicity, and motor car maintenance. The assessee's attempt to review the order was not permissible u/s 254(2) of the Act.3. Excess Collection of Sales Tax:The Judicial Member disagreed with the Accountant Member's view and found that the Tribunal committed an apparent mistake by directing the Assessing Officer to verify the accounting method. The correct approach was to allow the deduction if the liability was discharged before the due date for filing the income-tax return, as per the Supreme Court judgment in Allied Motors (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 224 ITR 677. The Third Member agreed with the Judicial Member's view.4. Claim of Excise Duty:The Judicial Member found an apparent mistake in the Tribunal's order for not considering the Special Bench decision in ITO v. Food Specialities Ltd. [1994] 49 ITD 21. The Tribunal should have allowed the deduction u/s 43B for the excise duty paid on goods cleared from the bonded warehouse but not sold. The Third Member agreed with the Judicial Member's view.5. Expenditure on Spare Parts:The Tribunal held that there was no mistake apparent from the record regarding the expenditure on spare parts. The assessee's attempt to review the order was not permissible u/s 254(2) of the Act.6. Non-Adjudication of Disallowance of Rs. 17,17,965:The Judicial Member found that the Tribunal committed a mistake by not adjudicating Ground No. 6(b) relating to the disallowance of Rs. 17,17,965. The order was recalled for adjudication on this issue. The Third Member agreed with the Judicial Member's view.Conclusion:The Tribunal's order was modified to allow the provision for leave encashment and to rectify the mistakes regarding the excess collection of sales tax and the claim of excise duty. The issue of disallowance of Rs. 17,17,965 was recalled for adjudication. The rest of the Tribunal's order was upheld.
TaxTMI 