TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (10) TMI 611
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bsp;2000-01 and 2004-05 respectively. 2. Ground Nos. 1 & 5 in the Assessment Year 2000-01 and ground Nos. 1 & 7 in Assessment Year 2004-05 are general in nature and hence, need no adjudication as so contended by the learned counsel for the assessee. Therefore, these grounds are rejected. 3. Ground Nos. 2 & 4 in Assessment Year 2000-01 and ground No. 2 in Assessment Year 2004-05 are with regard to the common issue as to whether the Assessing Officer was justified in not allowing deduction under sec. 80HHC of the Act in respect of Duty Entitlement Pass Book (DEPB) receipts/income. In the Assessment Year 2001-02, the assessee had shown net export profit at Rs. 4,46,23,409/-out....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ve fairly admitted that the issue in dispute is now fully covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Kalpataru Colours & Chemicals, 328 ITR 451, whereby the decision of ITAT, Special Bench, Mumbai in the case of Topman Exports, 318 ITR (AT) 87, was reversed. The authorities below have given a categorical finding of the fact that the assessee's turnover is more than Rs. 10 crores and the assessee had an option to choose either duty draw back or DEPB Scheme and the rate of duty draw back credit was not higher than the rate under DEPB Scheme. Therefore, the assessee's case is squarely covered by the Third and Fourth Proviso to sec. 80HHC(3) of the Act, w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....O's action by observing that the payment was not made during the financial year or even before the due date for filing of return of income. 12. In the course of hearing of this appeal, the learned counsel for the assessee pointed out that out of Rs. 33,46,304/-, sum of Rs. 12,721/-and Rs.15,404/-were actually paid in the months of December, 2003 and February, 2004 and a further provision of Rs. 33,18,179/-was made in the month of March, 2004 on the basis of calculation and estimates given by the LIC of India. It was further pointed out that out of the provision of Rs.33,18,179/-made in the month of March, 2004, the assessee deposited the sum of Rs. 4,79,694/-in LIC of India's G....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sation of liability of the creditors. 17. We have heard both the parties and gone through the orders of the authorities below. 18. It was found by the AO that sum of Rs. 1,93,407/-has been shown in the balance-sheet and payable to M/s. Jai Ambey Enterprises. This payment was remaining outstanding for more than two years i.e. it was remaining outstanding prior to 1.04.2001. The AO has observed that since the assessee has not given any reason as to why the payments have not been made during all these years, and since the concerned party has not initiated any legal proceedings against the assessee, the said amounts may be written off as a liability no longer required to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ills in support of the travelling expenses. However, the assessee could not submit all supporting bills in respect of the expenses incurred, specifically against foreign currency purchased by it. Therefore, in absence of documentary evidence, the AO stated that the nature and allowability of the expenses could not be ascertained. The AO further observed that as the representative of the assessee has travelled for business purposes, it is acceptable that the expenses relating to the boarding and lodging must have been incurred, but at the same time, non-business related and personal expenses cannot be ruled out. The AO, therefore, disallowed a lump sum amount of Rs. 5,00,000/-out of the f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as also not given the details of expenses incurred out of the foreign currency purchased by it. In the case of foreign travelling by a partner, it cannot be ruled out that some expenses might have been incurred by the partner for his personal benefit not relating to the business activities of a firm. Any payment made by a firm to a partner except the payment of salary and interest as allowable under section 40(b) cannot be allowed as deduction while computing the firm's profit. During the year under consideration, the assessee has shown the turnover of Rs.41,59,25,491/-against which, the sum of Rs. 83,01,029/-was incurred towards foreign travelling expenses. The percentage of foreign tra....