TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2001 (1) TMI 60
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the expenditure of Rs. 43,403 did not constitute entertainment expenditure within the meaning of section 37(2B) and was therefore not liable to be disallowed? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the cost of machinery amounting to Rs. 1,24,27,650 gifted by the Government of Australia to the Government of India and given by the Government to the assessee against shares of the assessee to be issued to the Government and shown in the balance sheet of the assessee-company as a liability owed to the Government of India, should be included as capital employed by the assessee for the purpose of computation of deduction admiss....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....connection with conference of the Social Welfare Departments of various Governments, incurred at six places, in connection with the assessee's business. A sum of Rs. 2,771 was incurred on lunch and dinner to foreign dignitaries who had come to help the assessee to run its business more efficiently. Accordingly, it was held that the entire amount was to be allowed as expenditure. Similarly, the assessee had claimed deduction under section 80J of the Act in respect of the imported machinery worth Rs. 1,24,27,650. The said machinery was received as a gift from the Government of Australia under the Colombo Plan. It was given to the assessee on the understanding that no money was to be paid for it but shares equivalent to the cost were to be is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Ltd. [1995] 215 ITR 165. In view of this position, the answer to the question referred is in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. So far the second question is concerned, we find that the Assessing Officer proceeded on the basis that there was no finality attained on the question of issuance of shares, if any. In fact the assessee itself was treating the amount as liability owed by the company to the Government. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, however, held otherwise. According to him, the amount was never payable to the Government as such. The intention from the beginning was that no payment was to be made in cash, but there was to be allotment of shares. It was further held that in the circumstances t....