2011 (7) TMI 74

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in allowing the corresponding liability against excise duty collected from customers as deduction when the decision of the High Court upholding the levy has been challenged by the assessee in the Supreme Court? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in allowing the deduction/provision for property tax payable to the extent of  Rs.7,73,636/- (iii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in allowing as revenue expenditure expenses incurred on tours for the purpose of project and for expansion of existing business?" QUESTION NO. (i)   2. The brief fac....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eal with the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as „CIT(A)]. The CIT(A) deleted the addition towards excise duty which was quantified at  Rs. 9,84,340/- by the Assessing Officer. In coming to this conclusion, the CIT(A) was persuaded by the assessees submission that since the Allahabad High Court had rendered its decision in the writ petition against the assessee in the accounting year relevant to the assessment year in question, there was a corresponding trading liability and hence, no addition in regard to sums collected towards excise duty received from its customers could be made vis-a-vis the assessee.   2.5 The Tribunal sustained the view taken by the CIT(A). The Tribunal noted that the re....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....0,878/-. 3.1 The assessee, however, while objecting to proposed enhancement in the rateable value, sought deduction in respect of the entire amount, though not paid in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income Tax (1971) 82 ITR 363. 3.2 The Assessing officer rejected the claim for deduction on the ground that the enhancement of ratable value was a mere proposal, it had not been accepted by the assessee. He, therefore, allowed the deduction to the extent agreed to by the assessee while disallowing the remaining amount in respect of which provision had been made, i.e., a sum of  Rs.7,73,636/- 3.3 The assessee being aggrieved preferred an appeal to the CIT(A). ....