TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1982 (4) TMI 128
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... etc; and was deriving income form their sale both in India and outside. The only issue raised in the revenue's is in respect of weighted deduction allowed by the CIT (A) in respect of commission paid of to Mr. Sham Sunder Sud of Ludhiana we first deal with it. The assessee came forward for total claim of Rs. 16,239 in respect of its claim of weighted deduction for the following. Commission paid to M/s. Hunson Traders Penanag Rs. 2,240 Commission paid to M/s. Joginder Pal Bhatia & Sons Bangkok Rs. 3,486 Commission paid to Sh. Sham Sunder Sud Rs. 10,513. The ITO accepted the assessee claim in respect of first two items totalling Rs. 5,726 but rejected the claim in respect of Rs. 10,513 which was in respect of commission ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... amounting to Rs. 2,400 paid to Sh.Sud as a consequence of which the assessee would be further entitled to weighted deduction of Rs. 600 more i.e instead of Rs. 10,513 (9,313 + 1,200) allowed by the CIT (A) the assessee would be entitled to weighted deduction on Rs. 11,113 (Rs. 9,313 + 1,1800) 5. Since the issue of weighted deduction is one which is raised by both the parties and the ground raised in the revenue's appeal, has already been rejected by us, in respect of salary and commission paid to Mr. Sud we now deal with other items which are disptued by the assessee. In respect of the disputes raised by the assessee in its, appeal the id Deptl Rep relied on the order of the CIT(A) whereas the ID counsel for the assessee submitted that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee can have no grievance in respect of these two items as these have already been allowed by the CIT(A) We have included the same in the list in order to keep continuity of numbers. (I) Travelling expenses : Rs. 1,364. The assessee's claim was rightly rejected by the CIT(A) in respect of this item. (J) Postage and Telegrams : Rs. 575. The action of the CIT(A) is in conformity with the Special Bench decisions and calls for no interference. (k) Misc. expenses : Rs. 240, It was incurred in connection with photostat copies of the documents etc., and the assessee claim was rightly rejected. (1) Demurrage : Rs. 61,305. The CIT(A) observed in that regard that the amount to be allowed would be only Rs. 33,005 as Rs. 28,000 has already b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... our consideration is ground no 1, which is in respect of Rs. 28,000 disallowed by the ITO on account of demurrage and confirmed by the CIT(A). The assessee had claimed total amount of Rs. 61,305 on account of demurrage charges out of which the ITO allowed Rs. 33,305 himself on the gorund that the same was paid by the State Bank Of India to M./s Manguanhim Trading Co. Kaula Lumpur Malaysia as per the bank certificate furnished by the assessee firm. Regarding the amount of Rs. 28,000 disallowed by the ITO he observe that the liability had not yet finally crystallised and in this connection he relied on a letter dt 22-11-1976 addressed to the Chairman Bombay Port Trust Bombay by the assessee firm which indicates that the assessee was still di....