TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (8) TMI 153
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n?" I.T.A. Nos. 1553 and 1919/Mds/94, 2676 and 43 to 47/Mds/96 for the assessment years 1986-87 to 1988-89, 1992-93, 1993-94: "2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the mamool paid at harbour, customs airport is to be allowed as a deduction?" I. T. A. Nos. 1553, 1919, 1612, 1922/Mds/94, 2657/Mds/95, 2656 and 2657/Mds/95,43 to 47/Mds/96 for the assessment years 1990-91, 1991-92, 1992-93, 1989-90, 1992-93, 1986-87 to 1988-89, 1992-93: "3. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the payment of incentives to Dock Labour Board workers had to be allowed as a deduction?" I. T. A. Nos. 43 and 45/Mds/96 for the assessment years 1986-87 and 1988-89: "4. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the claim of the loss from the films division had to be allowed?" I. T. A. Nos. 1612 and 1922/Mds/94, 2657/Mds/95, 2600/Mds/96 for the assessment years 1990-91, 1991-92, 1992-93, and 1993-94: "5. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the interest paid on the borrowings from th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....resent, the expenditure incurred was on the issue of debentures only and hence the expenses incurred on obtaining a loan is a revenue expenditure. We accordingly uphold the claim of the assessee." 3.3. The Assessing Officer had bifurcated the expenditure and allowed only 40 per cent. as revenue expenditure, without any basis. The Tribunal correctly held that the disallowance of 60 per cent. is without any basis and the Assessing Officer was wrong in treating part of the expenditure as capital expenditure on the reasoning that at the time of redemption of debentures, the holders of the debentures would be entitled to certain shares. The issue of shares is a future event which mayor may not happen. 3.4. The Tribunal considered and followed the principles enunciated in the apex court judgment reported in India Cements Ltd. v. CIT [1966] 60 ITR 52, which, in fact, followed by the Delhi High Court in CIT v. Thirani Chemicals Ltd. [2007] 290 ITR 196 holding that expenditure incurred on the issue of debentures is a permissible deduction under section 37 of the Act. 3.5. Learned counsel appearing for the Revenue has not produced any material or evidence to take a different view. The rea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....port is to be allowed as a deduction?" We still hold that no substantial question of law arises as the expenses incurred by the assessee in this regard are nothing but an inevitable expenditure as factually found by the Tribunal. Hence, finding no substantial question of law that arises for consideration, the appeal as regards question No.2 is also dismissed. Question No. 3: "Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the payment of incentives to Dock Labour Board workers had to be allowed as a deduction?" 5.1. This question pertains to the assessment years 1986-87 to 1988-89, 1989-90, 1990-91, 1991-92 and 1992-93. The assessee paid incentives to Dock Labour Board workers, share handling workers, tally clerks and lorry drivers. The said amount was paid to the workers as incentives to speed up the stevedoring work carried on by the assessee. The stevedoring is one of the business activities of the assessee-company which is a registered employer of the Madras Dock Labour Board. The said amount was paid in cash to the workers of the Madras Dock Labour Board as incentives to speed up the stevedoring work. The Assessing Officer allow....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed an appeal to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) allowed the appeal. Aggrieved by the order, the Revenue filed an appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal by following its earlier order of the assessee's own case relating to the earlier assessment years. 6.2. The Tribunal has consistently allowed the claim for loss from films division. The Revenue has accepted the earlier order and counsel for the Revenue has not produced any material or evidence before us to take a different view. When a consistent view has been taken by the Tribunal, there is no error or infirmity in the order of the Tribunal and it does not require interference and hence, no substantial question of law arises for consideration of this court and hence, the appeal in respect of question No.4 is dismissed. Question No.5: "Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the interest paid on the borrowings from the subsidiary company is an allowable deduction when the assessee had enough funds?" 7.1. This question pertains to the assessment years 1990-91, 1....