TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (9) TMI 276
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 4. We find that in A.Y. 1991 - 92, this issue was decided by the tribunal as per Para No. 11 of the tribunal order of that year. This Para is reproduced below:- "11. On the same line, in the present year also, we restore back this issue to the file of Assessing Officer for fresh consideration in accordance with law after considering the latest decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Britannia Industries Ltd. (supra) after finding out as to whether Kamla Retreat is guest house or not as per this judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court and if it is found that Kamla Retreat is guest house then no part of the expenditure incurred can be allowed as per this judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court. The Assessing Officer should pass necessary order as per law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, ground No. 3 is allowed for statistical purposes." 5. On the same line, in the present year also, we set aside the order of CIT (A) and restore the matter to A.O. for fresh decision with same directions as given by the tribunal in A.Y. 1991 - 92. Accordingly, ground No. 1 is allowed for statistical purposes. 6. Ground No. 2 of the appeal is as under: ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... In assessment year 85-86, 100% amount of the expenses for Kamla Retreat guest house was disallowed by the authorities below and under these facts, it was held by the Tribunal that such expenses would be allowed to the extent of 50% of the expenses made out for Kamla Retreat. Hence, it is seen that as per these orders, it was held that the expenses incurred for Kamla Retreat is allowable to the extent of 50% of the expenses incurred in this regard. In the present year also, as per Para 8A of the order of CIT(A), it is seen that the assessee has incurred an amount of Rs. 2,03,593/- as regard to Kamla Retreat. This entire amount was disallowed by the Assessing Officer but CIT(A) has restricted the disallowance to 50% and in this manner, he has allowed relief of Rs. 1,01,796/-. We find that this relief is in line with earlier Tribunal orders for three different preceding years. But in assessment year 88-89, in I.T.A. No.2633/Del/94 in Para No. 14 to 18, the Tribunal has considered the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Britannia Industries Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Income-tax as reported in [2005] 278 ITR 546 (SC). In that year, it was noted by the Tribunal that CIT....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he A.Y. 1987 - 88 as per Ground No. 8 and this appeal was heard on 23.03.2015 and therefore, in the present year, this ground can be decided on similar line as per tribunal order in that year. 14. We find that in A.Y. 1987 - 88, this issue was decided by the tribunal in favour of the assessee and against the revenue as per Para No. 28 of the tribunal order in A.Y. 1987 - 88. Accordingly, in the present year also, this issue is decided on similar line and the Ground No. 4 (a) of the revenue is rejected. 15. Ground No. 4 (b) of the appeal is as under: "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT (A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 437,067/- on account of presentation of articles to employees expenses even though the expenditure hit by section 37 (2A) of the Act." 16. It was agreed by both sides that identical issue was raised in the appeal of the revenue for the A.Y. 1987 - 88 as per Ground No. 9 and this appeal was heard on 23.03.2015 and therefore, in the present year, this ground can be decided on similar line as per tribunal orders in that year, where relief was allowed to the extent of 70%. 17. We find that in A.Y. 1987 - 88, this i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d in deleting the addition of Rs. 33,748/- on account of provisions for liabilities even though the purpose of the same had not been furnished in spite of specific opportunity was given." 25. It was agreed by both sides that identical issue was raised in the appeal of the revenue for the A.Y. 1987 - 88 as per Ground No. 12 and this appeal was heard on 23.03.2015 and therefore, in the present year, this ground can be decided on similar line as per tribunal order in that year. 26. We find that in A.Y. 1987 - 88, this issue was decided by the tribunal in favour of the assessee and against the revenue as per Para No. 45 of the tribunal order in A.Y. 1987 - 88. Accordingly, in the present year also, this issue is decided on similar line and the Ground No. 4 (e) of the revenue is rejected. 27. Ground No. 5 (a) of the Revenue's appeal is as under: "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT (A) has erred in allowing relief of Rs. 1,50,000/- on account of depreciation on other assets of the guest houses without appreciating the facts that the assessee had not produced any details in respect of assets at guest houses." 28. It was agreed by both sides that i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....his order. This Ground No. 6 of the revenue is rejected. 36. Ground No. 7 of the Revenue is as under: "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT (A) has erred in holding that surplus receipts over refunds in the cops deposits account was not the income of the assessee and thereby deleting the addition of Rs. 19,55,735/-." 37. It was agreed by both sides that identical issue was raised in the appeal of the revenue for the A.Y. 1987 - 88 as per Ground No. 1 and this appeal was heard on 23.03.2015 and therefore, in the present year, this ground can be decided on similar line as per tribunal order in that year. 38. We find that in A.Y. 1987 - 88, this issue was decided by the tribunal in favour of the revenue and against the assessee as per Para No. 3 of the tribunal order in A.Y. 1987 - 88. No difference in facts could be pointed out by any side and therefore, in the present year also, this issue is decided on similar line. Accordingly, this Ground No. 7 of the revenue is allowed. 39. Ground No. 8 of the Revenue is as under: "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT (A) has erred in deleting the disallowance on account of clos....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the tribunal in favour of the assessee and against the revenue as per Para 68 of the tribunal order for that year. No difference in facts could be pointed out by any side and therefore, in the present year also, this issue is decided on similar line. Accordingly, this ground No. 10 is rejected. 48. Ground No. 11(a) of the Revenue's appeal is as under: "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT (A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of 50% i.e. Rs. 179,924/- being expenses of entertainment in nature even though these expenses were hit by section 37 (2A) of the Act." 49. It was agreed by both sides that this issue was also raised in the appeal of the revenue for the A.Y. 1991 - 92 as per Ground No. 18 (a) and this these appeal was heard on 01.05.2015 and therefore, in the present year, this ground can be decided on similar line as per tribunal order in that year. 50. We find that in A.Y. 1991 - 92, this issue was decided by the tribunal in favour of the assessee and against the revenue as per Para 68 of the tribunal order for that year. No difference in facts could be pointed out by any side and therefore, in the present year also, this issue is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r line as per tribunal order in that year. 59. We find that in A.Y. 1991 - 92, this issue was decided by the tribunal in favour of the assessee and against the revenue as per Para 62 of the tribunal order for that year. No difference in facts could be pointed out by any side and therefore, in the present year also, this issue is decided on similar line. Accordingly, this ground No. 13 is rejected. 60. Ground No. 14 of the Revenue's appeal is as under: "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT (A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 44,18,893/-under the head repairs to plant & machinery expenses even though these expenses were of capital in nature." 61. It was agreed by both sides that this issue was also raised in the appeal of the revenue for the A.Y. 1991 - 92 as per Ground No. 10 and this these appeal was heard on 01.05.2015 and therefore, in the present year, this ground can be decided on similar line as per tribunal order in that year. 62. We find that in A.Y. 1991 - 92, this issue was decided by the tribunal in favour of the assessee and against the revenue as per Para 44 of the tribunal order for that year. No difference in facts....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0. It was agreed by both sides that this issue was also raised in the appeal of the revenue for the A.Y. 1991 - 92 as per Ground No. 30 (a) & 30 (b) and this these appeal was heard on 01.05.2015 and therefore, in the present year, this ground can be decided on similar line as per tribunal order in that year. 71. We find that in A.Y. 1991 - 92, this issue was decided by the tribunal in favour of the assessee and against the revenue as per Para 120 of the tribunal order for that year. No difference in facts could be pointed out by any side and therefore, in the present year also, this issue is decided on similar line. Accordingly, this ground No. 16 (b) is rejected. 72. Ground No. 17 is as under: "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,28,370/- on account of payment to concurrent auditors even though the expenditure hit by section 37(4)/37(5) of the Act." 73. Learned D.R. of the Revenue supported the assessment order whereas Learned A.R. of the assessee supported the order of learned CIT(A). He also submitted that this issue is covered in favour of the assessee by earlier Tribunal decision for assessme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rd and gone through the orders of the authorities below and the Tribunal decisions cited by Learned A.R. of the assessee. In A.Y. 1981 - 82, the Tribunal has allowed relief to the assessee under similar facts and Learned DR of the revenue could not point out any difference in facts and therefore, we do not find any reason to take a contrary view in the present year. Since, the order of CIT(A) is in line with earlier Tribunal decision, we decline to interfere in the order of CIT(A) on this issue. Accordingly, this ground No. 19 is rejected. 81. Ground No. 20(a) reads as under: "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT (A) has erred in deleting the disallowance up to 50% i.e. Rs. 4,27,928/- on account of entertainment expenses on customary presentation even though the provisions of section 37 (2A) is applicable." 82. It was agreed by both sides that identical issue was raised in the appeal of the revenue for the A.Y. 1991 - 92 as per Ground No. 4 (a) and this appeal was heard on 01.05.2015 and therefore, in the present year, this ground can be decided on similar line as per tribunal order in that year. 83. We find that in A.Y. 1991 - 92, this issue wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....- 92 as per Ground No. 4 (d) and this appeal was heard on 01.05.2015 and therefore, in the present year, this ground can be decided on similar line as per tribunal order in that year. 92. We find that in A.Y. 1991 - 92, this issue was decided by the tribunal in favour of the assessee and against the revenue as per Para No. 23 of the tribunal order in A.Y. 1991 - 92. Accordingly, in the present year also, this issue is decided on similar line and the Ground No. 20 (d) of the revenue is rejected. 93. Ground No. 20(e) reads as under: "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 15,26,996/- even though the assessee failed to prove the nexus of these expenses with business." 94. It was agreed by both sides that identical issue was raised in the appeal of the revenue for the A.Y. 1991 - 92 as per Ground No. 4 (c) and this appeal was heard on 01.05.2015 and therefore, in the present year, this ground can be decided on similar line as per tribunal order in that year. 95. We find that in A.Y. 1991 - 92, this issue was decided by the tribunal in favour of the assessee and against the revenue as per Para No. 20 of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o. 589/Luc/2002 available at pages 142 - 144 of the paper book. 101. We have considered the rival submissions, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below and the Tribunal decision cited by Learned A.R. of the assessee. In assessment year 1993-94, the Tribunal has restored the matter back to the file of the A.O. in view of finding in asessee's appeal for the same year in ITA No. 589/Luc/2002 available at pages 142 - 144 of the paper book. None of both sides could point out any difference in facts and therefore, we do not find any reason to take a contrary view in the present year. Accordingly, we set aside the order of CIT (A) on this issue and restore this matter back to the file of the A.O. for fresh decision with same directions as were given by the tribunal in A.Y. 1993 - 94. Accordingly, this ground No. 22 is allowed for statistical purposes. 102. Ground No. 23 is as under: "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT (A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 2,51,244/-even though the expenses were not relating to the sale made during the year under consideration." 103. Learned D.R. of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd in the circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT (A) was not correct in allowing the relief of Rs. 18,96,344/-under the head "General Charges" for which no details were filed." 112. It was agreed by both sides that identical issue was raised in the appeal of the revenue for the A.Y. 1991 - 92 as per Ground No. 8 and this appeal was heard on 01.05.2015 and therefore, in the present year, this ground can be decided on similar line as per tribunal order in that year. 113. We find that in A.Y. 1991 - 92, this issue was decided by the tribunal partly in favour of the Revenue as per Para 38 of the Tribunal order in that year. This Para is hereunder reproduced for ready reference:- " 38. We find that in A.Y. 1987 - 88, this issue was decided by the tribunal in favour of the assessee and against the revenue except a small part by confirming the addition to the extent of 30% out of expenses incurred in respect of presentation of articles and gifts. The tribunal order in A.Y. 1987 - 88 is as per Paras 43 to 45. Accordingly, in the present year also, this issue is decided on similar line and the Ground No. 8 of the revenue is allowed in part. Out of disallowance of Rs. 769,636/- on pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d in the case of CIT vs. Modi Xerox Ltd. (Supra), we decline to interfere in the order of CIT (A) on this issue. This Ground is rejected. 119. Ground Nos. 28 & 29 are general in nature and no separate adjudication is required. 120. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed in the terms indicated above. 121. Now we take up the assessee's appeal for assessment year 1992-93 i.e. I.T.A. No.506/Lkw/2010. 122. Ground No. 1 is as under:- "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred both on fact and in law in :- "1. Kamla Retreat Expenses Confirming disallowance of Rs. 2,83,354/- (being 50% of Rs. 566,708/-) by wrongly treating the same as expenditure hit by section 37(4) / 37(5) of the Act." 123. It was agreed by both sides that identical issue was raised in the appeal of the assessee for the A.Y. 1991 - 92 as per Ground No. 1 and this appeal was heard on 01.05.2015 and therefore, in the present year, this ground can be decided on similar line as per tribunal order in that year. 124. We find that in A. Y1991 - 92, this issue was decided by the tribunal against the assessee by following th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....- by holding it to be Guest House Expenses." 132. It was agreed by both sides that identical issue was raised in the appeal of the assessee for the A.Y. 1991-92 as per Ground No. 13(c) in that year and the appeal was heard on 01.05.2015 and therefore, in the present year, this ground can be decided on similar line as per tribunal order in that year. 133. We find that in A.Y. 1991-92 in assessee's own appeal, this issue was decided by the tribunal in favour of the assessee as per Para 180 of the tribunal order in A.Y. 1991-92. Therefore, in line with the Tribunal order in assessee's own appeal for assessment year 1991-92, this issue in the present year is decided in favour of the assessee. This ground is allowed. 134. Ground No. 3 is as under: "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred both on fact and in law in :- "Gardening Expenses Not allowing a sum of Rs. 19,751/- by holding it to be Capital Expenditure without appreciating the facts of the case." 135. It was agreed by both sides that identical issue was raised in the appeal of the assessee for the A.Y. 1991-92 as per Ground No. 13(c) in that y....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er in assessee's own appeal for assessment year 1991-92, this issue in the present year is decided against the assessee. This ground is rejected. 142. Ground No. 4(b) is as under: "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred both on fact and in law in :- "Guest House Expenses" In confirming disallowance of a sum of Rs. 50,000/- on the ad hoc basis towards depreciation on other assets of guest house." 143. It was agreed by both sides that identical issue was raised in the appeal of the assessee for the A.Y. 1991-92 as per Ground No. 17(b) in that year and the appeal was heard on 01.05.2015 and therefore, in the present year, this ground can be decided on similar line as per tribunal order in that year. 144. We find that in A.Y. 1991-92 in assessee's own appeal, this issue was decided by the tribunal in favour of the assessee as per Para 195 of the tribunal order in A.Y. 1991-92. Therefore, in line with the Tribunal order in assessee's own appeal for assessment year 1991-92, this issue in the present year is decided in favour of the assessee. This ground is allowed. assessee. This ground is allowed. 14....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t Development Expenses: In not allowing Rs. 224,902/- (being 50% of Rs. 449,803/-) holding it to be Entertainment Expenses." 152. It was agreed by both sides that identical issue was raised in the appeal of the assessee for the A.Y. 1991-92 as per Ground No. 11 in that year and the appeal was heard on 01.05.2015 and therefore, in the present year, this ground can be decided on similar line as per tribunal order in that year. 153. We find that in A.Y. 1991-92 in assessee's own appeal, this issue was decided by the tribunal against the assessee as per Para 168 of the tribunal order in A.Y. 1991-92. Therefore, in line with the Tribunal order in assessee's own appeal for assessment year 1991-92, this issue in the present year is decided against the assessee. This ground is rejected. 154. Ground No. 7 is as under:- "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred both on fact and in law in :- Cash Payment Exceeding Rs. 10,000/-: Confirming disallowace of an order of Rs. 212,107/-being genuine cash payment in excess of Rs. 10,000/-, though all these payments fall to be governed by second proviso to section ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ure was allowable u/s 37 (1) of the Act, which was reported by the Tax Auditors as 'Border Line Expenses' and their character may or may not be of capital in nature." 161. Learned D.R. of the Revenue supported the orders of the authorities below. Learned A.R. of the assessee reiterated the contentions raised before the lower authorities. 162. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that it is noted by the learned CIT (A) that the disallowance is on the basis of adverse comments of the Tax Auditors and the assessee could not bring any material on record to justify interference in the assessment order on this issue. Since no material is brought before us also to justify interference in the assessment order on this issue, we decline to interfere. Accordingly, Ground No. 9 of the assessee is rejected. 163. Ground No. 10 (a) is as under:- "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred both on fact and in law in :- Sales Promotion Expenses Not allowing Rs. 534,911/- (being 50% of Rs. 10,69,821/-) holding it to be entertainment expenses." 164. It was agreed by both sides that identical issue was rai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r 1993 - 94 of Rs. 19,70,452/- only. He has given a clear finding that this was a provision for contingent liability and nothing is produced before us that this is an ascertained liability and not a contingent liability. Hence, we find no basis or reason to interfere in the assessment order on this issue. Hence, we decline to interfere. Accordingly, Ground No. 11 of the assessee is rejected. 172. Ground No. 12 (a) is as under:- "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred both on fact and in law in :- 5. Charges General Confirming disallowance of Rs. 386,567/- (being 50% of Rs. 773,134/-) holding it to be entertainment expenses." 173. It was agreed by both sides that identical issue was raised in the appeal of the assessee for the A.Y. 1991-92 as per Ground No. 5 (a) in that year and the appeal was heard on 01.05.2015 and therefore, in the present year, this ground can be decided on similar line as per tribunal order in that year. 174. We find that in A.Y. 1991-92 in assessee's own appeal, this issue was decided by the tribunal against the assessee as per Para 144 of the tribunal order in A.Y. 1991-92. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g project expenses written off by not appreciating the facts of the case and the judicial pronouncements relied upon by the appellant." 182. It was agreed by both sides that identical issue was raised in the appeal of the assessee for the A.Y. 1991-92 as per Ground No. 6 in that year and the appeal was heard on 01.05.2015 and therefore, in the present year, this ground can be decided on similar line as per tribunal order in that year. 183. We find that in A.Y. 1991-92 in assessee's own appeal, this issue was decided by the tribunal in favour of the assessee as per Para 153 of the tribunal order in A.Y. 1991-92. Therefore, in line with the Tribunal order in assessee's own appeal for assessment year 1991-92, this issue in the present year is decided in favour of the assessee. This ground is allowed. 184. In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed. 185. Now we take up the appeal of the Revenue in I.T.A. No.632/Lkw/2010 for the assessment year 1996-97. 186. Ground No. 1 of the appeal is as under: "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-l, Kanpur has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 21,42,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Learned D.R. of the Revenue supported the assessment order whereas learned A.R. of the assessee supported the order of learned CIT(A). He also submitted that this issue is covered in favour of the assessee by tribunal order in assessee's own case for assessment year 93-94 in I.T.A. No.687/Lkw/2002, copy available on pages 179 to 180 of the paper book. 195. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that the present issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal decision in assessee's own case for assessment year 93-94 in I.T.A. No.687/Lkw/2002. Since Learned D.R. of the Revenue could not point out any difference in facts in the present year, we do not find any reason to take a contrary view in this year. Accordingly, respectfully following the earlier Tribunal decision, this ground is decided in favour of the assessee. This ground is rejected. 196. Ground No. 4 is as under: "4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-l, Kanpur has erred in allowing relief of Rs. 63,23,080/- on account of maintenance expenses of guest house without appreciating the facts that the assessee did not maintain the books in res....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee could not establish that all the expenses were revenue in nature and wholly and exclusively related to the business." 203. It was agreed by both sides that this issue is identical to the issue raised by Revenue in its appeal for assessment year 1991-92 as per ground No. 17 in I.T.A. No.537/Lkw/10, which was heard on 1^st May 2015. Both the sides agreed that this issue may be decided on similar line as per the decision of the Tribunal in assessment year 91-92. 204. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that identical issue was raised by Revenue in assessment year 91-92 as per ground No. 17 and in that year, the issue was decided by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue as per Para 63 - 65 of that Tribunal decision. On the same line, in the present year also, this issue is decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue and accordingly ground No. 6 of the Revenue is rejected. 205. Ground No. 7 is as under: "7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Kanpur has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,74,481/- on account of Gardening charges ignoring the fact that the exp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....penses were of entertainment in nature and hit by section 37(2A) of the Act." 212. It was agreed by both sides that this issue is identical to the issue raised by Revenue in its appeal for assessment year 1991-92 as per ground No. 9 in I.T.A. No.537/Lkw/10, which was heard on 1^st May 2015. Both the sides agreed that this issue may be decided on similar line as per the decision of the Tribunal in assessment year 91-92. 213. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that identical issue was raised by Revenue in assessment year 91-92 as per ground No. 9 and in that year, the issue was decided by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue as per Para 39 - 41 of that Tribunal decision. On the same line, in the present year also, this issue is decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue and accordingly ground No. 9 of the Revenue is rejected. 214. Ground No. 10 is as under: "10. On the facts and circumstances of the case the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-l, Kanpur has erred in restricting the disallowance up to the extent 50% on account of expenses on Kamla Retreat ignoring that these expenses are hit by section 37(4) and 37(5....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as per Para 5 - 7 of the Tribunal decision in assessment year 91-92. On the same line, in the present year also, this issue is decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue and accordingly ground No. 12 of the Revenue is rejected. 221. Ground No. 13 is as under: "13. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-l, Kanpur has erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 66,12,400/- on account of closing stock of Stores and Spare even though the assessee could not prove that all items charged under this head were routed through stores in spite of specific opportunity given." 222. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that identical issue was raised by Revenue as per ground No. 23 in assessment year 91-92 and the issue was decided by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue as per Para 86 of the Tribunal decision in assessment year 91-92. On the same line, in the present year also, this issue is decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue and accordingly ground No. 13 of the Revenue is rejected. 223. Ground No. 14 is as under: "14. On the facts and in the circumstance....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ds entertainment, presentation of articles. Guest house expense and expenses of capital nature as well as the assessee failed to furnish head wise bifurcation of expenses in spite of specific opportunity given." 228. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that identical issue was raised by Revenue as per ground No. 24(a) to 24(c) in assessment year 91-92 and the issue was decided by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue as per Para 87 to 95 of the Tribunal decision in assessment year 91-92. On the same line, in the present year also, this issue is decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue and accordingly ground No. 16 of the Revenue is rejected. 229. Ground No. 17 is as under: "17. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-l, Kanpur has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,00,000/- on account of concurrent auditors expenses ignoring the fact that the expenses included expenses on fooding, refreshment, railway fare, guest house etc. having the nature of entertainment and not connected to the business." 230. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that identic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 236. Ground No. 20 is as under: "20. On the facts and circumstances of the case the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-l, Kanpur is not correct in allowing the prospecting expenditure u/s 35E." 237. As per ground No. 21 in assessment year 1992-93 and as per Para 98 above, this issue has been restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh decision and accordingly, in the present year also, order of CIT(A) is set aside and matter is restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer with similar direction as given by the tribunal in assessment year 92-93. As per Para 98 above. This ground is allowed for statistical purposes. 238. Ground No. 21 is as under: "21. On the facts and circumstances of the case the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-l, Kanpur is not correct in allowing equity issue expenses u/s 35D." 239. As per ground No. 22 in assessment year 1992-93 decided as per Para 101 above, this issue has been restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh decision and accordingly, in the present year also, order of CIT(A) is set aside and matter is restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer as per the direction of the Trib....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s agreed by both the sides that this issue has been decided by the Tribunal against the assessee in assessee's own case for assessment year 94-95 and in this regard, our attention was drawn to Para 263 of the Tribunal order in that year. Accordingly, in the present year also, this issue is decided against the assessee and consequently, ground No. 24 of the Revenue's appeal is allowed. 247. Ground No. 25 is as under: "25. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-l, Kanpur has erred in allowing relief of Rs. 78,95,157/- on account of expenses on Architect award of the year ignoring the fact that the assessee company is not in actual construction business, as well as the assessee failed to establish clear nexus of expenditure with the business." 248. Learned D.R. of the Revenue supported the assessment order whereas learned A.R. of the assessee supported the order of learned CIT(A). 249. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that this issue was decided by learned CIT(A) as per Para 32 available on pages 34 and 35 of the order of CIT(A). We find that it is noted by CIT(A) that the disallowance was made by the Ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lar addition was deleted in assessment year 95-96 also. Considering these facts, we decline to interfere in the order of learned CIT(A) on this issue. This ground is rejected. 255. Ground No. 28 is as under: "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-l, Kanpur has erred in deleting addition of Rs. 1,29,540/- on account of cash payment above Rs. 10,000/- ignoring that the assessee had violated the provisions of section 40A(3) of the I. T. Act, 1961." 256. Learned D.R. of the Revenue supported the assessment order whereas learned A.R. of the assessee supported the order of learned CIT(A). 257. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that it is noted by learned CIT(A) that in assessment years 93-94, 94-95 and 95-96, similar addition was deleted. He has also followed the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Atar Singh Gurumukh Singh vs. Income Tax Officer 191 ITR 676 and a judgment of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. Suresh Kumar Agarwal 249 ITR 113. Considering these facts, we do not find any reason to interfere in the order of learned CIT(A) on this issue. This ground ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d WDV was reduced." 264. Learned D.R. of the Revenue supported the assessment order whereas learned A.R. of the assessee supported the order of learned CIT(A). 265. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that it is noted by learned CIT(A) that the Assessing Officer has made disallowance out of depreciation on the basis that out of repairs to plant & machinery, 10% of material cost of spares is to be considered as scrap value and the same should be reduced from the WDV of the plant & machinery and consequently, the depreciation is to be reduced to that extent. In our considered opinion, unless this is brought on record by the Revenue that there is any scrap value realized or is relalizable on account of sale of scrap, no such adjustment can be made in WDV because as per explanation 2 below clause (ii) of section 32(1), written down value of the block of assets shall have the same meaning as in clause (c) of sub section (6) of section 43 of the Act. As per clause (c) of sub section (6) of section 43, deduction has to be made from opening WDV on account of sums payable in respect of any asset falling within that block which is sold or discarded or demolished or distur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....epairs to plant & machinery treated as capital in earlier years before various courts." 270. Learned D.R. of the Revenue supported the assessment order whereas learned A.R. of the assessee supported the order of learned CIT(A). 271. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that CIT(A) has decided this issue on the basis that on similar issue in assessment year 94-95 and 95-96, disallowance was deleted by his predecessor. Otherwise also, when disallowance is made out of repair to plant & machinery on the basis that the same is capital in nature, depreciation on such capital expenditure has to be allowed and therefore, we find no reason to interfere in the order of CIT(A) on this issue. Ground No. 31(c) is rejected. 272. Ground No. 31(d) is as under: "31(d) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-l, Kanpur was not correct in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 2,95,716/- on account of depreciation on amount of Foreign exchange rate fluctuation even though the claim was hit by provisions of section 43A." 273. It was fairly agreed by both the sides that this issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the Tribuna....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Revenue supported the assessment order whereas learned A.R. of the assessee supported the order of learned CIT(A). 281. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that identical issue was raised by Revenue as per ground No. 22 in assessment year 91-92 in I.T.A. No. 537 and the issue was decided by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue as per Para 81 to 83 of the Tribunal decision in assessment year 91-92. Since Learned D.R. of the Revenue could not point out any difference in facts in the present year, we do not find any reason to take a contrary view in this year. Accordingly, respectfully following the earlier Tribunal decision, this ground is decided in favour of the assessee. This ground is rejected. 282. Ground No. 35 is as under: "35. On the facts and circumstances of the case the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-l, Kanpur has erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 1,77,26,216/-under the head repairs to plant & machinery expenses even though these expenses were of capital in nature as well as expenses related to earlier years, no details/incomplete details furnished, not related to business and not verifiable with vouchers." ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hereas learned A.R. of the assessee supported the order of learned CIT(A). 290. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that the decision of CIT(A) is on the basis that the liability to pay sales promotion incentive accrues when it is acknowledged upon attainment of the sales target set for each distributor or sub-distributor or selling agent. He has given a finding that the liability in respect of incentive was acknowledged by the assessee in the year in question and as such the expenditure is allowable in the present year. This finding of CIT(A) could not be controverted by Learned D.R. of the Revenue and therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order of CIT(A) on this issue. This ground is rejected. 291. Ground No. 38 is as under: "38. On the facts and circumstances of the case the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-l, Kanpur has erred allowing relief of Rs. 19,16,189/- on account of Product development expenses ignoring that these expenses were in the nature of entertainment as well as spent on gifts and presentation and hit by section 37(2A) of the Act." 292. Learned D.R. of the Revenue supported the assessment order whereas learned A.R. of the as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Iron and Engg. Co. vs. CIT [2002] 253 ITR 749 (Guj) where it is held that even if there is personal use of telephone and vehicles etc. by the Directors / employees of the company, the same can be included in the perquisites value of the concerned Director/ employee but the disallowance cannot be made in the hands of the assessee company. We decline to interfere in the order of CIT(A). This ground is rejected. 300. Ground No. 41 is as under: "41. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Kanpur has erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 15,64,887/- on account of repairs to other assets expenses, ignoring the fact that these expenses were not properly vouched as well as no proper details were furnished in spite of specific opportunity given." 301. Learned D.R. of the Revenue supported the assessment order whereas learned A.R. of the assessee supported the order of learned CIT(A). 302. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that a clear finding has been given by learned CIT(A) that the Assessing Officer has failed to point out even a single instance of unvouched expenses or absence of details. This finding o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er of learned CIT(A). 310. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that identical issue was raised by Revenue as per ground No. 5 in assessment year 91-92 in I.T.A. No. 537 and the issue was decided by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue as per Para 27 to 29 of the Tribunal decision in assessment year 91-92. Since Learned D.R. of the Revenue could not point out any difference in facts in the present year, we do not find any reason to take a contrary view in this year. Accordingly, respectfully following the earlier Tribunal decision, this ground is decided in favour of the assessee. This ground is rejected. 311. Ground No. 2 is as under: "2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the other consultancy charges of Rs. 2,38,515/- as Revenue expenditure." 312. Learned D.R. of the Revenue supported the assessment order whereas learned A.R. of the assessee supported the order of learned CIT(A). 313. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that identical issue was raised by Revenue as per ground No. 19 in assessment year 91-92 in I.T.A. No. 537 and the issue was decided by the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ifference in facts in the present year, we do not find any reason to take a contrary view in this year. Accordingly, respectfully following the earlier Tribunal decision, this ground is decided in favour of the assessee. This ground is rejected. 320. Ground No. 5 is as under: "5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 24,53,350/- on account other professional charges even though the assessee failed to prove the nexus of expenditure with business in spite of specific opportunity was given." 321. Learned D.R. of the Revenue supported the assessment order whereas learned A.R. of the assessee supported the order of learned CIT(A). 322. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that identical issue was raised by Revenue as per ground No. 20 in assessment year 91-92 in I.T.A. No. 537 and the issue was decided by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue as per Para 75 to 77 of the Tribunal decision in assessment year 91-92. Since Learned D.R. of the Revenue could not point out any difference in facts in the present year, we do not find any reason to take a contrary view in this ye....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er: "8. On the facts and circumstances of the case the ld. CIT (A) has erred in restricting the disallowance up to the extent 50% on account of expenses on Kamla Retreat ignoring that these expenses are hit by section 37(4) and 37(5) of the Act." 330. Learned D.R. of the Revenue supported the assessment order whereas learned A.R. of the assessee supported the order of learned CIT(A). 331. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that identical issue was raised by Revenue as per ground No. 29 in assessment year 91-92 in I.T.A. No. 537 and the issue was decided by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue as per Para 115 to 117 of the Tribunal decision in assessment year 91-92. Since Learned D.R. of the Revenue could not point out any difference in facts in the present year, we do not find any reason to take a contrary view in this year. Accordingly, respectfully following the earlier Tribunal decision, this ground is decided in favour of the assessee. This ground is rejected. 332. Ground No. 9 is as under: "9. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 4,26,466/- on account ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he assessment order whereas learned A.R. of the assessee supported the order of learned CIT(A). 340. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that identical issue was raised by Revenue as per ground No. 6 in assessment year 91-92 in I.T.A. No. 537 and the issue was decided by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue as per Para 30 to 32 of the Tribunal decision in assessment year 91-92. Since Learned D.R. of the Revenue could not point out any difference in facts in the present year, we do not find any reason to take a contrary view in this year. Accordingly, respectfully following the earlier Tribunal decision, this ground is decided in favour of the assessee. This ground is rejected. 341. Ground No. 12 is as under: "12. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in allowing relief of Rs. 8,34,795/-being the disallowance on account of proportionate interest on the interest free loans to M/s J. K. Satoh Agricultural Machines Ltd., while the Assessing Officer has established that the advances had been made to the subsidiary company out of bank overdraft." 342. Learned D.R. of the Revenue supported the assess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... issue was decided by the Tribunal partly in favour of the assessee as per Para 36 to 38 of the Tribunal decision in assessment year 91-92. Since Learned D.R. of the Revenue could not point out any difference in facts in the present year, we do not find any reason to take a contrary view in this year. Accordingly, respectfully following the earlier Tribunal decision, this ground is partly decided in favour of the assessee on same line as per tribunal order in assessment year 91-92 as per Para 36 to 38 of the Tribunal decision in assessment year 91-92. This ground is partly allowed. 350. Ground No. 15 is as under: "15. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in allowing relief of Rs. 94,94,434/- on account of expenses on employees welfare ignoring the fact that the expenses debited under this head were related towards entertainment, presentation of articles. Guest house expense and expenses of capital nature as well as the assessee failed to furnish head wise bifurcation of expenses in spite of specific opportunity given." 351. Learned D.R. of the Revenue supported the assessment order whereas learned A.R. of the assessee supported the or....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ar 91-92 in I.T.A. No. 537 and the issue was decided by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue as per Para 12 to 26 of the Tribunal decision in assessment year 91-92. Since Learned D.R. of the Revenue could not point out any difference in facts in the present year, we do not find any reason to take a contrary view in this year. Accordingly, respectfully following the earlier Tribunal decision, this ground is decided in favour of the assessee. This ground is rejected. 359. Ground No. 18 is as under: "18. On the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 1,57,448/- under the head traveling out of pocket expenses even though these expenses related to guest house expenses and were of entertainment in nature and hit by section 37(2A) of the Act." 360. Learned D.R. of the Revenue supported the assessment order whereas learned A.R. of the assessee supported the order of learned CIT(A). He also submitted that the issue in dispute is covered in favour of the assessee by the order of the Tribunal in assessee's own case for assessment year 93-94 as per Para 251 and 252 of the Tribunal order. 361. We hav....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ses ignoring the fact that these expenses were entertainment in nature and spent on food etc. as well as capital expenditure in nature." 369. Learned D.R. of the Revenue supported the assessment order whereas learned A.R. of the assessee supported the order of learned CIT(A). He also submitted that the issue in dispute is covered in favour of the assessee by the order of the Tribunal in assessee's own case for assessment year 93-94 as per Para 281 and 282 of the Tribunal order. 370. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that the issue in dispute is covered in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal decision in assessee's own case for assessment year 93-94. Learned DR of the revenue could not point out any difference in facts and therefore, we do not find any reason to take a contrary view in the present year. This ground is rejected. 371. Ground No. 22 is as under: "22. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in allowing relief of Rs. 61,52,204/- on account of expenses on Architect award of the year ignoring the fact that the assessee company is not in actual construction business, as well as the assessee failed to establis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....etainer-ship Fee, even though the expenditure was debited to earlier years." 378. Learned D.R. of the Revenue supported the assessment order whereas learned A.R. of the assessee supported the order of learned CIT(A). 379. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that the decision of CIT(A) is on the basis that the liability has crystallized during this year. This finding of CIT(A) could not be controverted by Learned D.R. of the Revenue and hence, we decline to interfere in the order of CIT(A). This ground is rejected. 380. Ground No. 25 is as under: "25. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,82,730/- on account of liabilities of more than 3 years, even though the debt were effected with cessation of liabilities within the meaning of section 41(1) of the I. T. Act, 1961." 381. Learned D.R. of the Revenue supported the assessment order whereas learned A.R. of the assessee supported the order of learned CIT(A). 382. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that learned CIT(A) has deleted this addition by following the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of CIT v....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ught on record by the Revenue that there is any scrap value realized or is relalizable on account of sale of scrap, no such adjustment can be made in WDV because as per explanation 2 below clause (ii) of section 32(1), written down value of the block if assets shall have the same meaning as in clause (c) of sub section (6) of section 43 of the Act. As per clause (c) of sub section (6) of section 43, deduction has to be made from opening WDV on account of sums payable in respect of any asset falling within that block which is sold or discarded or demolished or disturbed, during that previous year together with the amount of scrap value, if any, subject to this that such deduction is not exceeding the WDV. In the present case, the scrap value sought to be reduced by the Assessing Officer is not on account of assets being sold or discarded or demolished or disturbed. In the present case, the asset is put to repair and the material used for repair of plant & machinery cannot be said to be the scrap value on account of sale or discarding or demolishing or disturbing of the asset in question. Hence, in our considered opinion, there is no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) therefore, we dec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... issue was raised by Revenue as per ground No. 30(a) & 30(b) in assessment year 91-92 in I.T.A. No. 537 and the issue was decided by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue as per Para 118 to 120 of the Tribunal decision in assessment year 91-92. Since Learned D.R. of the Revenue could not point out any difference in facts in the present year, we do not find any reason to take a contrary view in this year. Accordingly, respectfully following the earlier Tribunal decision, this ground is decided in favour of the assessee. This ground is rejected. 396. Ground No. 28 is as under: "28. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 50,74,371/- on account of Brokerage & Commission even though the expenses were not relating to the sale made during the year under consideration." 397. Learned D.R. of the Revenue supported the assessment order whereas learned A.R. of the assessee supported the order of learned CIT(A). 398. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that identical issue was raised by Revenue as per ground No. 21 in assessment year 91-92 in I.T.A. No. 537 and the issue w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in favour of the assessee. This ground is rejected. 405. Ground No. 31 is as under: "31. On the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 1,44,57,224/- under the head repairs to plant & machinery expenses even though these expenses were of capital in nature as well as expenses related to earlier years, no details7in-complete details furnished, not related to business and not verifiable with vouchers." 406. Learned D.R. of the Revenue supported the assessment order whereas learned A.R. of the assessee supported the order of learned CIT(A). 407. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that identical issue was raised by Revenue as per ground No. 10 in assessment year 91-92 in I.T.A. No. 537 and the issue was decided by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue as per Para 42 to 44 of the Tribunal decision in assessment year 91-92. Since Learned D.R. of the Revenue could not point out any difference in facts in the present year, we do not find any reason to take a contrary view in this year. Accordingly, respectfully following the earlier Tribunal decision, this ground is decided in favo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....54/- on account of Product development expenses ignoring that these expenses were in the nature of entertainment as well as spent on gifts and presentation and hit by section 37(2A) of the Act." 415. Learned D.R. of the Revenue supported the assessment order whereas learned A.R. of the assessee supported the order of learned CIT(A). 416. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that identical issue was raised by Revenue as per ground No. 18(a) & 18(b) in assessment year 91-92 in I.T.A. No. 537 and the issue was decided by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue as per Para 66 to 68 of the Tribunal decision in assessment year 91-92. Since Learned D.R. of the Revenue could not point out any difference in facts in the present year, we do not find any reason to take a contrary view in this year. Accordingly, respectfully following the earlier Tribunal decision, this ground is decided in favour of the assessee. This ground is rejected. 417. Ground No. 35 is as under: "35. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 25,64,629/- on account of articles/gift intended for presentation ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n favour of the assessee by the order of the Tribunal in assessee's own case for assessment year 93-94 as per Para 279 to 280 of the Tribunal order. 425. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that the issue in dispute is covered in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal decision in assessee's own case for assessment year 93-94. Learned DR of the revenue could not point out any difference in facts and therefore, we do not find any reason to take a contrary view in the present year. This ground is rejected. 426. In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed. 427. Now we take up the Revenue's appeal i.e. I.T.A. No.714/Lkw/2010 for assessment year 1999-2000. 428. Ground No. 1 is as under: "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the Guarantee charges of Rs. 2,79,445/- as Revenue expenditure." 429. Learned D.R. of the Revenue supported the assessment order whereas learned A.R. of the assessee supported the order of learned CIT(A). 430. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that identical issue was raised by Revenue as per ground No. 17 in assessment year 91-92 in I.T.A. No. 5....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... decision, this ground is decided in favour of the assessee. This ground is rejected. 437. Ground No. 4 is as under: "4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing relief of Rs. 50,31,983/- on account of traveling expenses were not incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes and hit by provisions of section 37(1) of the I. T. Act." 438. Learned D.R. of the Revenue supported the assessment order whereas learned A.R. of the assessee supported the order of learned CIT(A). 439. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that identical issue was raised by Revenue as per ground No. 9 in assessment year 91-92 in I.T.A. No. 537 and the issue was decided by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue as per Para 39 to 41 of the Tribunal decision in assessment year 91-92. Since Learned D.R. of the Revenue could not point out any difference in facts in the present year, we do not find any reason to take a contrary view in this year. Accordingly, respectfully following the earlier Tribunal decision, this ground is decided in favour of the assessee. This ground is rejected. 440. Ground No. 5 is as und....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....has erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 70,868/- on account of club expenses ignoring the fact that these expenses were not connected with business." 447. Learned D.R. of the Revenue supported the assessment order whereas learned A.R. of the assessee supported the order of learned CIT(A). 448. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that identical issue was raised by Revenue as per ground No. 26 in assessment year 91-92 in I.T.A. No. 537 and the issue was decided by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue as per Para 100 to 102 of the Tribunal decision in assessment year 91-92. Since Learned D.R. of the Revenue could not point out any difference in facts in the present year, we do not find any reason to take a contrary view in this year. Accordingly, respectfully following the earlier Tribunal decision, this ground is decided in favour of the assessee. This ground is rejected. 449. Ground No. 8 is as under: "8. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) was not correct in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 33,38,673/- under the head " General Charges" for which no details were filed." 450. Learned D.R. of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hereas learned A.R. of the assessee supported the order of learned CIT(A). 457. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that identical issue was raised by Revenue as per ground No. 4(a) to 4(d) in assessment year 91-92 in I.T.A. No. 537 and the issue was decided by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue as per Para 12 to 26 of the Tribunal decision in assessment year 91-92. Since Learned D.R. of the Revenue could not point out any difference in facts in the present year, we do not find any reason to take a contrary view in this year. Accordingly, respectfully following the earlier Tribunal decision, this ground is decided in favour of the assessee. This ground is rejected. 458. Ground No. 11 is as under: "11. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 35,000/- on account of traveling expenses ignoring the fact that these expenses were not connected with business." 459. Learned D.R. of the Revenue supported the assessment order whereas learned A.R. of the assessee supported the order of learned CIT(A). He also submitted that the issue in dispute is covered in favour of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....67. Ground No. 14 is as under: "14. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing the relief of Rs. 6,80,000/-on account of office maintenance expenditure ignoring that these expenses seemingly of capital nature." 468. Learned D.R. of the Revenue supported the assessment order whereas learned A.R. of the assessee supported the order of learned CIT(A). He also submitted that the issue in dispute is covered in favour of the assessee by the order of the Tribunal in assessee's own case for assessment year 93-94 as per Para 281 and 282 of the Tribunal order. 469. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that the issue in dispute is covered in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal decision in assessee's own case for assessment year 93-94. Learned DR of the revenue could not point out any difference in facts and therefore, we do not find any reason to take a contrary view in the present year. This ground is rejected. 470. Ground No. 15 is as under: "15. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing relief of Rs. 16,65,633/- on account of expenses on Architect award of the year ignori....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,22,949/- on account of liabilities of more than 3 years, even though the debt were effected with cessation of liabilities within the meaning of section 41(1) of the I. T. Act, 1961." 477. Learned D.R. of the Revenue supported the assessment order whereas learned A.R. of the assessee supported the order of learned CIT(A). 478. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that learned CIT(A) has deleted this addition by following the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. Sugauli Sugar Works (P) Ltd. 236 ITR 518. This is not the case of the Revenue that the liability is not appearing in the balance sheet. The only objection of the Assessing Officer is that the liability is more than three years old. Hence, under these facts, the disputed issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court followed by learned CIT(A). We, therefore, decline to interfere in the order of learned CIT(A). This ground is rejected. 479. Ground No. 18 is as under: "18. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld, CIT(A) has erred in allow....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ums payable in respect of any asset falling within that block which is sold or discarded or demolished or disturbed, during that previous year together with the amount of scrap value, if any, subject to this that such deduction is not exceeding the WDV. In the present case, the scrap value sought to be reduced by the Assessing Officer is not on account of assets being sold or discarded or demolished or disturbed. In the present case, the asset is put to repair and the material used for repair of plant & machinery cannot be said to be the scrap value on account of sale or discarding or demolishing or disturbing of the asset in question. Hence, in our considered opinion, there is no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) therefore, we decline to interfere in the order of CIT(A) on this issue. Ground No. 19(a) is rejected. 485. Ground No. 19(b) is as under: "19(b) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing 100% depreciation on Machinery for energy saving while such machinery was not directly covered by this type of Plant & Machinery as mentioned in I. T. Rules be calculated treating it as Plant & Machinery instead of part of roads." 486. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... out any difference in facts in the present year, we do not find any reason to take a contrary view in this year. Accordingly, respectfully following the earlier Tribunal decision, this ground is decided in favour of the assessee. This ground is rejected. 494. Ground No. 20 is as under: "20. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 70,63,503/- on account of Repairs to Plant & Machinery expenses even though the assessee could not prove that all items charged under this head were routed through stores in spite of specific opportunity given." 495. Learned D.R. of the Revenue supported the assessment order whereas learned A.R. of the assessee supported the order of learned CIT(A). 496. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that identical issue was raised by Revenue as per ground No. 10 in assessment year 91-92 in I.T.A. No. 537 and the issue was decided by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue as per Para 42 to 44 of the Tribunal decision in assessment year 91-92. Since Learned D.R. of the Revenue could not point out any difference in facts in the present year, we do n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....und No. 23 is as under: "23. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 16,29,022/- on account of telephone expenses, ignoring that the assessee could not prove that all expenses under this head were incurred wholly & exclusively for the business purposes in spite of specific opportunity given." 504. Learned D.R. of the Revenue supported the assessment order whereas learned A.R. of the assessee supported the order of learned CIT(A). 505. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that this issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the judgment of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court rendered in the case of Sayaji Iron and Engg. Co. vs. CIT [2002] 253 ITR 749 (Guj) where it is held that even if there is personal use of telephone and vehicles etc. by the Directors / employees of the company, the same can be included in the perquisites value of the concerned Director/ employee but the disallowance cannot be made in the hands of the assessee company. We decline to interfere in the order of CIT(A). This ground is rejected. 506. Ground No. 24 is as under: "24. On the facts and in the circumstances of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of learned CIT(A). 513. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that identical issue was raised by Revenue as per ground No. 10(a) in assessment year 90-91 in I.T.A. No. 486 and the issue was decided by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue as per Para 37 to 39 of the Tribunal decision in assessment year 90-91. Since Learned D.R. of the Revenue could not point out any difference in facts in the present year, we do not find any reason to take a contrary view in this year. Accordingly, respectfully following the earlier Tribunal decision, this ground is decided in favour of the assessee. This ground is rejected. 515. Ground No. 27 is as under: "27. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing relief of Rs. 4,32,224/- on account of guest house maintained in Kamla Castle at Mussorie even though no details of the expenditure were produce before him and as such, the relief given is without basis." 516. Learned D.R. of the Revenue supported the assessment order whereas learned A.R. of the assessee supported the order of learned CIT(A). 517. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that id....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... rejected. 523. Ground No. 30 is as under: "30. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the other consultancy charges of Rs. 16,952/- as Revenue expenditure." 524. Learned D.R. of the Revenue supported the assessment order whereas learned A.R. of the assessee supported the order of learned CIT(A). 525. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that identical issue was raised by Revenue as per ground No. 19 in assessment year 91-92 in I.T.A. No. 537 and the issue was decided by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue as per Para 72 to 74 of the Tribunal decision in assessment year 91-92. Since Learned D.R. of the Revenue could not point out any difference in facts in the present year, we do not find any reason to take a contrary view in this year. Accordingly, respectfully following the earlier Tribunal decision, this ground is decided in favour of the assessee. This ground is rejected. 526. Ground No. 31 is as under: "31. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,70,300/- on account other professional charges even thou....