Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2018 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (9) TMI 225 - HC - Income TaxDisallowance of expenditure for security at tea gardens - Held that:- If less expenditure has been disallowed or the entire expenditure has not been disallowed, it is, in our opinion, a plain and simple question of fact. On the alleged failure to make disallowance, we do not find any perversity involved. A remedy if, at all, lay in a further appeal on a question of fact. But the law does not allow any such further appeal. Under Section 260A, we cannot allow this question to be raised. Payment of alleged rent to Dakorji Properties Pvt. Ltd - premises not been transferred to Dakooji Property Pvt. Ltd. by the actual owners of the property, a dispute was going on and the keys of the premises were lying with the police ? - Held that:- We find on an examination of the order of the Tribunal that all these factual issues have been answered in favour of the assessee. Now, when these facts are in favour of the assessee, it is not within the domain of a Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 260A to enquire into the correctness of that fact finding and return a contrary finding that the assessee was not a tenant, and was not in using the premises for business purposes, overturning the ruling of the Tribunal. Benefit conferred on the employees on superannuation or was a retirement benefit:- We find on examination of the order of the Tribunal that its decision was based on BHARAT EARTH MOVERS VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX [2000 (8) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT] where held that the liability was not a contingent liability. In that case, the Supreme Court was concerned with beneficiary schemes for encashment of leave of the assessee company Bharat Earth Movers. In this case a scheme for medical benefit post retirement was involved. The tribunal treated the liability as accrued and to be discharged in the future, based on the above Supreme Court decision. In our opinion, this finding of the tribunal is based on standard accounting principles and consequential application of the law - no infirmity in the reasoning or conclusion reached by the Tribunal.
|