Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

1999 (11) TMI 53

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ich a sum of Rs. 2,50,000 given as donation to the Gujarat Cricket Club was the subject-matter. 100 per cent. deduction was claimed, claiming that the expenditure was in the nature of staff welfare activity. It was pointed out to the Assessing Officer that the said expenditure was claimed on the ground of commercial expediency in order to facilitate the carrying on of the business indirectly, by satisfying the needs of the executives and staff. The Assessing Officer held that a benefit of enduring nature has accrued to the assessee-company, and therefore, the same has resulted in the acquisition of a capital asset. It seems that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) hearing the appeal against the order passed by the Assessing Officer was....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... expenditure as it has ultimately resulted in the acquisition of a capital asset. The Tribunal accepted the facts pleaded and pointed out that in the absence of any evidence that seats are reserved for the directors or their family members only, merely on the basis of an apprehension that they could be used only by them, the Department cannot disallow the claim. The tribunal further observed that an expenditure can be considered as capital in nature only when any capital asset had been created by the assessee by the expenditure. It was not disputed before the Tribunal that the assessee had no proprietary right on, the seats which had been promised by the association to be allotted at the time of any event or game. The Tribunal, therefore....