TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (5) TMI 322
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....997-1998. The questions of law and which, according to Mr.Gupta, are substantial, have been formulated at paragraph 4, page 4 of the paper book. 2. The submission of the learned senior counsel is that, each of this would be a substantial question of law, inasmuch as, the Tribunal has misdirected itself in granting the relief and not accepting the view of the department/Assessing Officer. 3. With regard to the first question and so far as that is concerned, the grievance is that the Tribunal has sustained only 50% of the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer towards the travelling expenses. Mr.Gupta submits that the assessee did not provide the entire material per person per trip, yet, the disallowance is sustained only to this extent....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ustries Ltd. v/s CIT, reported in (2005) 278 ITR 546 (SC). Since factual matters have to be verified and examined in the light of the legal principles that the matter has been remitted back to the Assessing Officer, we are of the view that such a direction does not raise any substantial question of law. It would be open for the Assessing Officer to go through some of the materials produced and thereafter come to a conclusion with regard to this claim. All contentions of both sides in that regard are kept open. 6. Insofar as question ( C ) relating to the issue of foreign currency bonds which are fully convertible into the equity shares of the Company is concerned, Mr.Gupta submits that there is no judgment of this Court on the point. The T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the rival contentions and particularly the fact that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had confirmed the disallowance on the footing that the bonds were fully convertible into shares, the issue of bonds was made after creating an authorized capital and which could take into account stock of shares, therefore, a debatable question is raised. The appeal deserves admission on this question. It is a substantial question of law. The appeal is, therefore, admitted as far as this question of law is concerned. 9. Insofar as question Nos.(D), (E), (F) and (G) are concerned, the Tribunal has found that the assessee Company paid a sum of Rs.5,82,15,305/- to M/s Hawtal Whiting & Engineering Company Ltd., U.K., for improving the ride and handli....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....crores, namely, payment made to M.S.E.B. for additional power is concerned, having perused the order passed by the Tribunal in that regard, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal has considered the matter essentially in the light of the factual position brought on record. It has, therefore, interfered with the order passed by the Assessing Officer. To our mind, considering the reasons assigned by the Tribunal in paragraphs 35 to 35.2 of the order under challenge, the said discussion would not raise any substantial question of law. The matter has been decided in the light of the payment made to the M.S.E.B. as non refundable and that is towards consumers' contribution/service charges on account of availing additional power. The appeal t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eduction. In such circumstances, even this aspect does not raise any substantial question of law. The appeal is dismissed to that extent. 13. To our mind, even the provision for pending labour demands and its disallowance made by the Assessing Officer is rightly deleted. The Tribunal has found that the demands were pending. There was wage issue raised by the labour unions and, therefore, in the given facts and circumstances and to maintain industrial harmony and peace, the assessee company made a provision of Rs.537.09. The revenue may term it as contingent in nature. However, we do not find that the reasons assigned by the Tribunal in that regard raise any substantial question of law. The appeal is, therefore, partly dismissed. 14. It sh....