2019 (4) TMI 965

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....991-1992 and 1992-1993. 2. The Appeal in T.C.A.No.283 of 2006, was admitted on 07.03.2006, by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on the following Substantial Question of Law: "(i) Whether in the facts and circumstances for the case, the Tribunal was right in allowing deduction in respect of contributions to Institute of Road Transport that were not actually paid during the relevant previous year? (ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the tribunal was right in holding that the assessee is entitled to accounting reimbursement claims in respect of student concession passes on a cash basis, while it was generally following a mercantile system of accounting? 3. The Appeal in T.C.A.No.284 of 2006 was admit....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ce the part amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- was paid by the Assessee after the completion of the financial year, the same could not have been allowed for deduction under Section 35(1)(ii) of the Act. 5.However, on the other hand, learned counsel for the Assessee Mr.A.S.Sriraman submitted that the part of the total sum of Rs. 33,53,400/- viz., a sum of Rs. 20,00,000/- was paid by the Assessee to the said institution under the directions of the State Government, to which the communication was received by the Assessee only on 25.03.1992 i.e., on the fag end of the Financial year. Though this amount has been paid after the end of the financial year, since the liability was incurred during the financial year relevant to 1992-1993, the same deser....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rection of the State Government for the payment of Rs. 20,00,000/- came just before the end of the financial year, therefore, in our opinion, the entire expenditure in this regard ie., Rs. 33,55,400/-, deserves to be allowed in the hands of the Assessee under Section 37 of the Act for A.Y.1992-1993 in the present case. Therefore, both the authorities below have rightly allowed the same under Section 37 of the Act and the question of applying Section 35 (1)(ii) of the Act to the said contributions did not arise, since the Assessee has not claimed weighted deduction for one and half times of actual expenses in this regard. Therefore, the first question deserves to be answered against the Revenue and in favour of the Assessee. We hereby do ....