1992 (4) TMI 104 - AT - Income Tax

ITAT Madras Appeal: Income Computation, Expenditure Ruling, Entertainment Expenses, Investment Allowance

GEORGE MAIJO. Versus INCOME TAX OFFICER.

The appeal before ITAT MADRAS-A concerned the computation of income for the assessment year 1984-85. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee regarding ... - Issues:1. Computation of income for the assessment year 1984-85.2. Treatment of expenditure incurred for demonstration of Yamaha Generators.3. Treatment of expenditure for the visit of foreign buyers.4. Claim for investment allowance under section 32A(2).Analysis:1. The appeal and cross objection before the Appellate Tribunal ITAT MADRAS-A pertained to the computation of income for the assessment year 1984-85.2. Regarding the expenditure incurred for the demonstration of Yamaha Generators, the assessee contested that the expenses were not general publicity but aimed at educating prospective users. The Revenue argued that any demonstration of the product should be considered as publicity attracting the provisions of section 37(3A). After considering both sides, the Tribunal found that the demonstration was targeted at prospective buyers to educate them on operating the machine, rather than for general publicity. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's claim and directed to exclude the specific sums related to the demonstration expenses from the application of section 37(3A).3. The issue of expenditure for the visit of foreign buyers arose, where the Assessing Officer treated a portion of the expenses as entertainment expenditure. The CIT(A) allowed 50% of the expenditure to be treated as entertainment, which was appealed by the Revenue. The Tribunal held that expenses incurred for the stay of foreign visitors in hotels cannot be categorized as entertainment expenditure. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal on this point was dismissed.4. The final issue involved the claim for investment allowance under section 32A(2) for the production of processed sea foods. The Revenue objected, stating that this activity did not qualify as a manufacturing activity. However, the Tribunal noted that in previous years, the Tribunal had allowed similar deductions for the business of processing sea foods. As the facts remained consistent, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the claim for investment allowance under section 32A(2).5. The cross objection filed by the assessee was deemed not maintainable as it only supported the order of the CIT(A). Consequently, the appeal of the assessee was partly allowed, while the appeal of the Revenue and the cross objection of the assessee were dismissed.