TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1986 (11) TMI 102
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....said loss be added to the cost of truck for the purpose of depreciation. 3. The IAC (Assessment) worked out the disallowance of Rs. 37,945 under s. 40(C)/40A(5) on the following basis: Name Gross Salary Net covered under s. 40C/40-A(5) Net disallowance . Rs. Rs. Rs. Chairman 84,268 1,100 11,168 Managing Director 95,697 2,910 20,787 Shri Sher Jung Bahri, Director 79,952 6,100 1,852 Shri C.L. Bahri 74,082 1,100 982 Shri Fraquir Singh 76,236 1,100 3,136 . . . 37,945 4. Before the Commissioner (A), it was submitted in appeal that the remuneration in question was not excessive or unreasonable and should have been allowed fully. In any case, disa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....been made have not been approved. Sec. 36(1) (ix) concerns family planning expenditure which again, is not applicable in the present case. (iii) In view of the above position, the IAC (Asstt)'s order did not call for any interference. 6. Shri C.S. Aggarwal, ld. Counsel for the assessee, objecting to the disallowance maintained by the Commissioner (A) contends that the Commissioner(A) had wrongly held that the Provident Fund contributions could be included in the computation as the fund in the instant case was not approved. But this was not correct. Attention is invited to pages 3 to 8 of the assessee's paper book. These contain a copy of the Tribunal's order in this very case for the asst. yrs. 1978-79 and 1979-80 (ITA Nos. 195 & 196/....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sentative supported the order of the authorities below. In the written submissions before the Commissioner (A), found at page 15 of the Paper Book we find that specific objections had been taken to all the three items above as not includible as taxable perquisites. However, we do not find any discussion with regard to such individual items in the order of the Commissioner (A). In other words, the Commissioner (A) has not passed a speaking order in this regard. Shri Aggarwal, in fact, filed a working before us showing that, while there was no excess payment over Rs. 72,000 in the cases of Sher Jung, C.L. Bahri and Faquir Singh, there was such excess payment in the cases of M.L. Bahri and S.L. Bahri being Rs. 15,315 and Rs. 6,415 respectively....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ncidental to the trade itself and not merely connected with the trade. (b) In the instant case, the cash that was being carried by Ramesh Khanna was a capital asset of the assessee. It was not the stock-in-trade of the assessee which was not a bank or a financial company. In the light of the decisions in CIT vs. Moti Ram Nand Ram (1940) 8 ITR 132 (PC) and Narang Industries Ltd. vs. CIT (1967) 66 ITR 316 (Del), the loss in question was a capital loss and rightly disallowed as such. 8. Shri Aggarwal submitted that the cash in question was being carried by an employee of the assessee company in the course of carrying on business and hence it had to be allowed as a revenue loss. He invited attention in this regard to Ramchandra Shivanarai....