TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1993 (5) TMI 54
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nts of Rs. 2,99,265 and Rs. 1,32,060 have been duly paid within the statutory time prescribed i.e. on 13th Jan., 1983, as they related to the last quarterly payment of Maharashtra Sales-tax. In view of this factual position he has directed that the addition of Rs. 3,85,109 be deleted. We find that the view of the matter taken by the learned CIT(A) is correct and proper and is in consonance with the decision of the Patna High Court in the case of Jamshedpur Motor Accessory Stores vs. Union of India & Ors. (1991) 91 CTR (Pat) 19 : (1991) 189 ITR 70 (Pat). This ground of the appeal thus has no force and shall, therefore, stand rejected. Assessee's appeal 3. Ground No. 1 "The CIT(A) erred in upholding the ITO's action of holding that the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ious aspects of the issue, which had an important bearing on the matter. In this connection, the learned counsel referred to the letter dt. 3rd Aug., 1989, and the note on ground No. 3 submitted to the learned CIT(A). These documents are available at pages 15 and 16 of the paper-book filed before us. It is stated in these letters that on the loan of Rs. 30,30,000 advanced to M/s Westwin Investments Ltd. the assessee had charged interest at 12 per cent. The two Revenue authorities have not taken this fact into consideration. The second aspect of the matter discussed by the learned counsel was that M/s Westwin Investments Ltd. is a 96 per cent subsidiary of the assessee-company and, therefore, the loan should be treated as to have been advanc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rned CIT(A) seeking rectification of this part of the impugned order and stated that application is still pending. Looking to these facts and circumstances and the pronouncement made in the aforesaid decision of the Madras High Court, we consider it fit and proper to send the matter back to the Assessing Officer with a direction that he will further examine all aspects of the issue in the light of the above submission of the learned counsel and the decision of the Madras High Court and pass a fresh appropriate order in accordance with law. 5. Ground No. 3 "The CIT(A) erred in upholding the ITO's action of disallowing the ex gratia payments of Rs. 1,84,230." The deduction sought in respect of the ex gratia payment to workers of a su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (sic) to this loss. In view of the operational results of the assessee the payment of ex gratia was not at all warranted. Admittedly, there was no agreement or settlement requiring the assessee to make such payment. In these circumstances, we do not feel inclined to allow this ground of the appeal and reject the same. 6. Ground No. 4 "The CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the ITO in disallowing the amount of Rs. 7,882 being the sundry balances written off." The assessment order does not contain any discussion on this issue. The learned CIT(A) has discussed the issue in the following manner, viz.: "5. The next ground of appeal is regarding the disallowance of Rs. 7,882 being the sundry balances written off. An effort was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(A) erred in rejecting the appellant's contention that the amount of Rs. 3,500 was not covered by disallowance under s. 80VV of the Act." The assessment order does not contain any discussion of this disallowance of Rs. 3,500. The learned CIT(A) has discussed this issue in para 7 of his impugned order in the following manner, viz.: "7. The next ground of appeal is that the ITO had wrongly disallowed Rs. 3,500 under s. 80VV. I am unable to find any merit in the appellant's contention in this regard in view of the absence any positive income for the year and the ratio of judgment reported in Indian Oxygen Ltd. vs. CIT (1986) 56 CTR (Cal) 185 : (1987) 164 ITR 466 at 478 (Cal)." We find that perhaps the complete picture is not before us....