TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (4) TMI 228
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of motor car ? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in directing the Assessing Officer not to exclude from the profits and gains items of other income while working out the deduction under section 80-I ? 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in confirming the order of the CIT (A) that expenditure incurred by the assessee is not in the nature of advertisement and no disallowance under Rule 6B can be made ? 4. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in confirming the order of the CIT (A) that the premium of group Insurance policy should not be considered as salary or perquisite for disallowance under Section 40A (5) ? 5. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in confirming the order of the CIT (A) allowing the assessee claim for production incentives ? 6. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in confirming the order of the CIT (A) of deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of exgratia payments made to retiring employees ? 7. Whether on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fairly conceded by Mrs.Vasanti Patel appearing on behalf of the assessee that there is judgment in the field, namely, of the Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. British Bank of Middle East (2001) 251 ITR 217. That is the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and directly on the point. Since that covers the issue or question against the assessee and in favour of the revenue, we hold accordingly. 7. As far as the second ground is concerned, what we have noted from the tribunal's order and equally from the Commissioner's order is that the same pertains to the exclusion from the profits and gains items of other income while working out deduction under 80-I of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Mr.Pinto placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sterling Foods reported in (1999) 237 ITR 579 (SC). He would submit that the tribunal has failed to note that under section 80-I deduction is permissible only if the profits and gains are derived from the industrial undertaking. Therefore, it is required and in all such cases to establish as to how the same are derived from the industrial undertaking. In the present case, the tribunal ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... given to him and issued in terms of paragraph 11 of the tribunal's order do not raise any substantial question of law. 9. As far as the third question is concerned, we are of the view that the tribunal has followed the judgment of this Court in the case of the Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Allana and Sons reported in (1995) 216 ITR 690 (Bom.). If that is how the matter has been approached and equally the tribunal found that the facts and circumstances in case of Allana and Sons, are identical to the assessee before us then even this question cannot be answered, otherwise but in favour of the assessee. Relying on the judgment, this is not substantial question of law at all because the answer to it has been given by this Court in the judgment reported prior to the impugned order. Hence, the said question will have to be answered in favour of the assessee. 10. As far as disallowance and which has been made pertaining to the premium to group insurance policy, the tribunal held that the premium of group insurance should not be considered as salary or perquisites for disallowance under section 40A (5) of the Income Tax Act is the conclusion reached by the Commissioner (Appeals). ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uccessfully because the departmental application for reference was rejected by the tribunal itself, then this question is also not substantial question of law. In any event, the authoritative pronouncement by the Division Bench of this Court in the decision brought to our notice, namely, the Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Maina Ore Transport (P) Ltd. (2010) 324 ITR 100 answers the question in favour of the assessee. 13. On the question No.7 reproduced above, it is fairly conceded by Ms.Patel that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Britania Industries Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Income Tax (2005) 278 ITR 546 answers it against the assessee and in favour of the revenue. 14. As far as question No.8 is concerned, once again it has been brought to our notice that in the assessee's own case pertaining to disallowance, namely, Investment allowance under section 32A, the tribunal has passed the order in years 1979- 80, 1980-81, 1982-83 and 1983-84. In the first assessment year 1979-80 the department sought to make reference of a question of law to this Court but that application was rejected by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Thereafter for the assessmen....