2018 (9) TMI 225

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f Rs. 8, 00,000/- only out of the claim of expenditure of Rs. 59, 88, 728/- for alleged security at tea gardens, thereby giving relief of Rs. 51, 88, 728/- is perverse as the entire expenditure was unproved, the payee concerns were non-existent, no confirmation was filed for security claimed to have been provided and security had been provided by Indian Tea Association against payment ? (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal allowing payment of Rs. 1, 68, 10, 480/- to Gangan Properties Pvt. Ltd. for alleged supply of organic manure is perverse & erroneous as the party had passed only accommodation entries through a circuitous chain of transactions without rendering ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ounts received from the employees were returned to them with interest ? It is well-settled by authority that a substantial question of law denotes a question of law of great substance and public importance. An ordinary question of law cannot be termed as a substantial question of law. The statute, while engrafting Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 allowed appeals from the orders of the Tribunal to the High Court on substantial questions of law only, making it akin to second appeals under the Civil Procedure Code. In this appeal, we find that five issues have been identified as giving rise to substantial questions of law, by the said order dated 8th June, 2005. On hearing this appeal we find that these questions are substantially f....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ertaken to bear the cost of repairs to the premises, the amount paid on account of such repairs; (ii) otherwise than as a tenant, the amount paid by him on account of current repairs to the premises." Mr. Agarwal, learned counsel for the Revenue argues that the assessee had not been in possession of the property and a dispute was going on between them and the lessor. The keys of the premises were lying with the police. Therefore, the application of Section 30 was dependent upon the findings whether the assessee was a tenant, paying rent and using the demised premises for the purpose of its business. We find on an examination of the order of the Tribunal that all these factual issues have been answered in favour of the assessee. Now, wh....