2012 (4) TMI 638

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in allowing expenses of Rs. 15,00,000/incurred on project consultancy and obtaining project report for expansion of the industrial undertaking which is capital in nature; B. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in holding that payment of Rs. 11,31,700/made to various institutions like Bihar flood and Drought Relief Committee, Tata Steel Charitable Trust etc. were related to the welfare of the employees without appreciating the fact that such expenses were not incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes; C. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in allowi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lowed in the tubes division in the earlier assessment year;" 2. As regards question A, the Tribunal has relied on its own decision for Assessment Year 1968-69 in the case of the assessee. The Tribunal has held that the expenditure which was incurred on project consultancy and obtaining a project report for expansion of the undertaking was liable to be allowed as a business expenditure. The issue is also governed in favour of the assessee by the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court dated 7 June 2011 in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Tata SSL Ltd. (Income Tax Appeal 1323 of 2010). Since the Tribunal has followed its own decision in the case of the assessee for a previous Assessment Year and since the facts of the present Assessment Ye....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l that the same reasoning that has governed question B would govern question F. The Tribunal has noted in paragraph 43 of its decision that the expenses were incurred keeping in mind business expediency in order to have a motivated work force. Hence, no substantial question of law would arise. 8. As regards question G, the Tribunal has observed in paragraph 85 of its decision that the assessee had claimed a sum of Rs. 5.63 Crores as depreciation for eighteen months on the bearing division whereas the Assessing Officer restricted the depreciation to twelve months. During the previous year relevant to the Assessment Year in question the assessee had purchased a bearing division of Metal Box Company Limited as a going concern with effect fr....