1991 (4) TMI 182

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 1,22,751 Total 3,18,711 Under the scheme of the State Government which was applicable to the assessee company, the sales-tax collected was to be paid after 10 years and that too in five equal instalments. Sec. 22D of M.P. General ST Act, 1958 which was inserted vide Act No. 25 of 1982 w.e.f. 1st April, 1981 stipulated that certain registered dealers who may set up a new industrial unit in any district of Madhya Pradesh, if eligible for grant of the facility of deferred payment of tax under the scheme providing for grant of incentive to entrepreneurs for setting up new industrial units in the State, as the State Government may make in this behalf, may make deferred payment subject to restrictions and conditions as may be specifi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ITO had vide order dt.7th Sept., 1990, held that nothing contained in s. 43B applied to a similar case having identical facts. 6. The learned Departmental representative relied on the orders of the Departmental authorities. 7. We have carefully considered the rival submissions as also the facts on record. The Board Circular of25th Sept., 1987lays down that if the State Governments make amendment in the ST Act to the effect that the sales-tax deferred under the scheme shall be treated as actually paid, such deeming provision will meet the requirements of s. 43B. We have already referred to sub-s. (3B) or s. 22 which was inserted vide Act no. 14 of 1988 w.e.f.1st April, 1981laying down that the deferred tax shall be deemed to have been ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....were not attracted to the facts of the case. 10. The learned Departmental Representative relied on the orders of the Departmental authorities. 11. We have carefully considered the rival arguments. Sec. 80 VV of the IT Act, applies to the expenditure incurred by an assessee in respect of any proceedings before an Income-tax authority or the Appellate Tribunal or any Court relating to the determination of any liability under the IT Act, by way of tax, penalty on interest. According to the learned CIT(A) the amount has been paid by way of retainership fee for consultation in respect of income-tax matters. It is, therefore clear that the payment of Rs. 1,002 is not representation of assessee's Income-tax matters before the appropriate aut....