TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (1) TMI 318
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Employees' contribution 3,06,337 Employers' contribution 6,80,291 9,86,628 12,67,760" 5. It was submitted before the learned CIT(A) that amount of Rs. 1,20,649 out of Rs. 2,81,132 relating to bonus payable was paid by the assessee before the due date for filing of the return under s. 139(1) of the Act and, therefore, no disallowance should be made to this extent. The assessee also submitted that evidence regarding payment of Rs. 1,20,649 was filed during the course of assessment proceedings and, therefore, there was no justification even to disallow this amount. 6. So far as disallowance of Rs. 9,86,628 was concerned, the assessee submitted following details: S. No. Month Employees' contribution(Rs.) Employer's contribution(Rs.) Total(Rs.) Amount deposited(Rs.) Date of deposit 1. Feb. 88 55,258.80 1,22,732.35 1,77,991.15 1,77,962 21.3.88 2. Apr. 88 46,137.05 1,01,334.60 1,47,471.65 1,46,935 21.5.88 3. May 88 45,838.80 1,03,010.35 1,48,849.15 1,49,365 21.6.88 4. Dec. 88 37,205.30 82,600.20 1,19,805.50 1,19,770 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y within the said date. It was explained that this amount was payable by15th Nov., 1989, but the same was paid before31st Dec., 1989. The learned counsel also placed reliance on the following decisions in support of his arguments raised before us: (1) CIT vs. Jayant Patel (2000) 163 CTR (Mad) 367 : (2001) 248 ITR 199 (Mad) (2) CIT vs. Trehan Enterprises (2001) 168 CTR (J&K) 274 : (2001) 248 ITR 333 (J&K) 9. The learned Departmental Representative, on the other hand, supported the order of the learned CIT(A). 10. We have carefully considered the entire material on record. In the Board's Circular No. 669, dt.25th Oct., 1993, after making reference to the earlier Circular No. 581, dt. 28th Sept., 1990, it has been clarified that if the sums referred in the first proviso to s. 43B had in fact been paid on or before due dates mentioned therein, but evidence therefor had been omitted to be furnished along with return, then the AO can entertain applications under s. 154 of the Act for rectification of intimations under s. 143(1)(a) or order under s. 143(3) of the Act, as the case may be, and decide the case on merits. 11. In view of the above circular, if the evidence was f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rticipation in the business meetings not hit by s. 37(2)(A) against which assessee-appellant is again in appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Departmental Representative has relied on the order of the CIT(A). Following the Expo Machinery case, we allowed 35 per cent deduction for employees participation. It is not denied by the Revenue that the employees have not at all participated." 18. In our view, therefore, the issue stands covered by the above decision of the Tribunal in favour of the assessee. Hence, ground No. 3 is allowed partly in favour of the assessee. Ground No. 4: 19. Ground No. 4 is directed against the sustenance of disallowance of prior period expenses of Rs. 1,32,759 out of adjustments relating to earlier years amounting to Rs. 17,46,023. 20. The learned CIT(A) has considered the issue in paras 23 and 24 of his order. He has rejected the plea of the assessee by observing that in the year under appeal nothing was brought on record to justify that the prior period expenses had crystallized during the accounting year relevant for the assessment year under consideration. 21. Before us, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the assessee that the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....behalf of the assessee that the Departmental authorities have segregated this expenditure out of expenditure of advertisement and publicity. In this regard, our attention was invited to pp. 44 to 57 of the paper book which contain full particulars of these expenses. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the assessee that these expenses were incurred in connection with publicity and advertisement of the company through banners in the cricket stadium and other sports events, and, therefore, are in the nature of revenue expenses which were incurred for carrying out business of the assessee-company, and the same are to be allowed. 25. The learned CIT(A) has considered the issue in paras 25 to 29 of his order and he has confirmed the disallowance to the extent of Rs. 76,625 by observing as under: "29. Regarding the amount of Rs. 21,500 spent on permanent seat allocation in the stadium, amount of Rs. 5,000 spent on new year celebration, amount of Rs. 7,125 paid to electricity board, Rs. 25,000 spent on advertisement on account of construction of public school for the children of policemen and Rs. 18,000 spent on purchase of tickets for the show at Nehru Stadium, I hold that n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of assessee." 30. In view of the above, the issue stands covered in favour of the assessee by the abovementioned order of the Tribunal and, therefore, this ground stands allowed in favour of the assessee. Ground No. 7: 31. This ground is directed against the directions of the learned CIT(A) for restoring certain matters to the AO. 32. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the assessee withdrew this ground. Otherwise also, since the learned CIT(A) had restored the matter to the AO, no grievance is caused to the assessee. In view of the above, this ground is rejected. 33. In the result, assessee's appeal is partly allowed. ITA No. 7594/De/1992: Ground No. 1: 34. This ground is directed against deletion of disallowance of Rs. 35,917 being premium on keyman insurance policy. 35. The learned CIT(A) had decided the issue by following the orders of the earlier years in the case of the assessee and also by following the order of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Bharat Ram Charat Ram (P) Ltd. (1985) 47 CTR (Del) 5 : (1986) 157 ITR 109 (Del). Thus, this ground is covered in favour of the assessee by the earlier orders and also....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....year should be considered in a composite manner in working out the disallowance under r. 6D of the IT Rules, 1962, Concerned order of the AO is at pp. 17 to 19 and that of the CIT(A) is at pp. 7 and 8. Very fairly the learned Authorized Representative for the assessee has pointed out that this ground is covered against the assessee by the order of the above Tribunal for asst. yr. 1987-88 in ITA No. 4722/Del/1992. Concerned order is at pp. 1-2. Nothing contrary has been pointed out by the learned Departmental Representative. Hence, we decide this ground accordingly." 39. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue has been recently considered by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. General Electric Co. India Ltd. (2002) 175 CTR (Cal) 1 : (2002) 255 ITR 22 (Cal) and, therefore, in view of the latest decision, the issue should be decided in favour of the assessee, and the direction of the learned CIT(A) should be upheld. 40. We have carefully considered the issue. On perusal of the relevant para at p. 4 of the assessment order, it is found that he has taken disallowable amount at Rs. 2,48,605. The AO has not given the details of expenses per e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... actual travelling as well as during the period of stay at any particular place, for the purpose of business. 44. In the case of South India Shipping Corpn. Ltd. vs. CIT, the Hon'ble Madras High Court has held that the disallowance under r. 6D of IT Rules would take into account all the expenses incurred by the assessee during the entire period of absence of its employees from the headquarters. In taking this view, the Hon'ble Madras High Court has followed its earlier decision in the case of R.K. Swami Advertising Associates (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (1998) 147 CTR (Mad) 332 : (1996) 220 ITR 507 (Mad). 45. So far as the decision in the case of CIT vs. General Electric Co. India Ltd. is concerned, the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court has considered the issue relating to clubbing of journey and held that the words "aggregate of the amounts" mentioned in r. 6D of the IT Rules refers to the aggregate for the assessment year and not to a particular trip and if the expenditure was within the limit of aggregate, then it is a matter as to what a particular employee spent on one travel. 46. In view of the above decisions, the facts of the present matter have to be examined afresh by the AO rela....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nterfere in the order of the learned CIT(A). Consequently, the ground taken by the Revenue is rejected. Ground No. 4: 54. This ground relates to the allowability of entertainment expenditure. 55. We have considered this issue while deciding ground No. 3 in ITA 7678/Del/1992 in the appeal of the assessee and have allowed the ground in favour of the assessee. The relevant discussions on this issue are in paras 13 to 18 of the order. Thus, we uphold the order of the learned CIT(A) on this issue and reject this ground of the Revenue. Ground No. 5: 56. This ground is directed against allowing of deduction of Rs. 6,56,671 being cost of construction of scoreboard installed at Nahar Singh Stadium and sum of Rs. 39,400 being professional fee incurred in this regard. 57. The learned CIT(A) had restored this issue to the file of the AO for deciding the issue afresh. The relevant observations of the learned CIT(A) in this regard are contained in para 27 of his order which is as under: "27. I have carefully considered the facts of the case, the assessment order and contentions of the appellant's learned counsel. In view of the judgments relied upon by the appellant's learne....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lso. The learned CIT(A) has also directed to withdraw depreciation allowed to the assessee on these items. 62. The learned counsel for the assessee invited our attention to the summarized statement which is available at p. 13 of the paper book. He also made reference to relevant vouchers and enclosures. 63. After considering the entire material to which our attention was invited by the learned counsel for the assessee, we find that the learned CIT(A) was fully justified in treating the expenditure for business purposes. We, therefore, uphold the view taken by him. Hence, this ground of the Revenue stands rejected. Ground No. 7: 64. This ground is directed against deleting the disallowance of Rs. 1,05,654 made by the AO on account of unverifiable nature of the claim. The learned CIT(A) has considered the issue in para 36 of his order. He had deleted the disallowance by reversing the findings of the AO who treated the expenditure as capital in nature. 65. We have considered the entire material on record. The assessee has given details of expenditure on p. 13 of the paper book at item No. 6, according to which, for dismantling the existing flooring of the building, etc.....