2003 (4) TMI 218

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ncurred for the purpose of assessee's business. The AO is directed to allow the same. 3. The second ground relates to confirmation of disallowance of Rs. 2810 being the amount paid for purchase of wall clock. The learned counsel submitted that the wall clock was purchased from Naresh Kumar Mehta & Sons for office and plant but the AO has misunderstood as if those watches were presented to Naresh Kumar Mehta & Sons. Copy of bill of watches purchased by the assessee from Naresh Kumar Mehta & Sons have been submitted on pp. 3 and 4 of the paper book. 3.1 After considering the submissions made by the learned representatives of the parties and perusing the documents submitted in the compilation, I am of the view that the assessee is clearl....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of losses and weak position of the company continues." 5.1 The learned counsel submitted that in the past years to which the aforesaid amount of interest relates, the appellant-company was undergoing losses. The board of directors, therefore, resolved that the interest on deposits from directors and members will not be allowed till the period of loss. During the year under consideration, company started making profits and therefore, as per the understanding with the depositors, an entry for the interest due to the depositors from the date from which the payment was stopped, was passed and appropriate amount of tax on such interest credited in the accounts of various depositors, was duly deducted. The depositors in whose accounts such int....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....fore be treated as having accrued in the year under consideration in view of aforesaid resolution passed by the board of directors. Even otherwise the rate of tax in the case of companies was uniform in different years. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Nagri Mills Co. Ltd. (1958) 33 ITR 681 (Bom) has observed as under: "We have often wondered why the IT authorities, in a matter such as this, where the deduction is obviously a permissible deduction under the IT Act, raise disputes as to the year in which the deduction should be allowed. The question as to the year in which a deduction is allowable may be material when the rate of tax chargeable on the assessee in two different years is different; but in the case of inc....