TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (8) TMI 76
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... held that the interest of Rs. 94,029/- Rs. 1,86,572/-, 1,86,516/- 1,87,140/- Rs. 3,33,997/-, Rs. 3,57,684/- paid on the fixed deposits was an allowable deduction u/s 80V of the Act? 4. Whether the Tribunal ought to have held that a direct nexus between the fixed deposits raised and the payment of taxes was not necessary in order to claim the deduction u/s.80V? 5. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that "it was not the case of the assessee that all the bank accounts it had was all along a overdraft account" when in fact it was specifically explained at the time of the hearing that its bank accounts were overdraft accounts and the same was demonstrated by reference to the assessee's printed accounts? 6. Whether the Tribunal was justified in refusing to follow the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in 171 ITR 583 although the facts and circumstances of the assessee's case are identical to the facts and circumstances in the case before the High Court? 7. Whether the Tribunal's finding that the assessee is not entitled to the deduction u/s 80V of the Act is vitiated as it has taken into account the following irrelevant circumstances? (a) that th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the said order that the Tribunal had borne in mind the said Explanation before coming to its conclusion? 19. Whether the Tribunal was justified in distinguishing the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Mysore Minerals Ltd on the surmise that the expenses on the delegations must have been incurred in the office, factory or other place of work of the employees because the ITO himself had allowed 1/4th of the expenses incurred? 2. Question No.1 was not referred as the same was covered by the decision of this Court. Questions Nos.11 to 13 were not pressed and with reference to Question No.20, the Tribunal came to a finding that the same no longer survived. 3. Questions Nos.2 to 10 reproduced above were dealt with by the Tribunal at paragraphs 3 to 8 of its appellate order. After recording the submissions of the Assessee as well as the Department, the Tribunal at paragraph Nos. 7 and 8 held as follows:- "7. We have given our anxious and careful consideration to the materials on record facts and circumstances of the case in the light of the submissions made by the authorized representatives for the parties and the decisions cited by them. On such examinatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the assessee, especially in view of the fact that it was never the case of the assessee that it had evidence on this point but for some reason or other failed to produce the same before the lower authorities. In our opinion we have already stated that the case of Bakelite Hylam Ltd (supra) does not apply. Similarly the case of Gopikrishna Murlidhar (supra) also does not apply because that related to the business carried on by an HUF which was also withdrawing money from the business for personal expenditure and the interest paid was on capital borrowed u/s 10(2) (iii) of the Indian Income- Tax Act, 1922 which is similar to the provisions of Section 36(i)(iii) of the present Act. It does not deal with the question as before us. From the order dated 17.09.83 of this Tribunal relied upon by the authorized representative for the assessee it does not seem that in the said case profits of the company was sufficient to pay taxes as in the present case. In the order dated 21.1.82 also there was no dispute "about inference of the first appellate authority when the borrowings were for purposes of payment of income-tax" (emphasis ours). 8. For all the reasons stated above we hold that the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uthorized representative for the assessee contended that these expenses were made on giving dinners and lunch to customers in the hotels and that the customers or guests were accompanied by equal number of the offers of the assessee company and as such 50% of the expenses should be allowed. In support of his contention he relied on the order of this Tribunal in the case of Antifriction Bearings Corporation Ltd Bombay v ITO, Com.Cir.V(3) Bombay ITA No.4563/Bom/82 for the assessment year 1976-77 in which this Tribunal allowed 50% of the expenses. He also placed reliance on the decision in the case of CIT v Mysore Minerals Ltd ( 1986) 162 ITR 562 (Kar). Opposing these contentions the D. R. contended that admittedly the expenses were incurred in hotels and not in office factory or other place of work of assessee's employees and as such the entire expenses are to be excluded in view of the provisions contained in Explanation II to sub-sec.2A of Sec.37 of the Act. We find from the order of this Tribunal in the case of Antifriction Bearings Corporation Ltd (supra) that the Explanation II to Sec.37(2A) was not considered in the said decision. The facts in the case of Mysore Minerals Lt....