TMI Blog1990 (11) TMI 203X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sment year are before us. We find it convenient to dispose of all the three appeals by this common order. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the assessee Shri G.C. Sharma and the learned Sr. D.R. Shri Subhash Kumar and have perused the records. The assessee is a public limited company with its registered office at 23, Kasturba Gandhi Marg,New Delhi. Income is derived from manufacture and sale of pistons, pins and rings The previous year for the asst. yr. 1980-81 ended on30th April, 1979. We shall first take up ITA No. 5131 (Del)/1987. Various grounds of appeal have been raised which we dispose of in seriatum as under. 3. Ground No.1 is general in nature and does not require separate consideration. 4. Ground No.2(a) and (b) relat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he amount had been paid to the firm on the basis of the services rendered. The payment is also reasonable having regard to the services rendered. There is no evidence on record to show that the payment made to the firm is disproportionate to the services rendered. It was accordingly pleaded that the disallowance of Rs. 10,000 confirmed by the CIT(A) may be deleted. 6. The learned D.R. contended that the firm has charged the company at the rate of Rs. 320 for drafting adjournment applications. Similarly the details of the charges would revel that the payment made to the firm was excessive having regard to the services rendered. The learned D.R. further contended that Shri J.B. Dadachandji was partner of the legal firm. He is also one of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... less than Rs. 320 for drafting adjournment applications or for other services rendered. It is not disputed that the charges made by the firm for the work related to the business of the firm. In the absence of any evidence for the payment being excessive or unreasonable, we are unable to confirm the disallowance of Rs. 10,000 on account of professional charges. The disallowance is accordingly deleted. 9. Grounds No.4(a) and (b) relate to the disallowance of Rs. 69,438 pertaining to the business conference expenses. The learned Counsel for the assessee conceded that this issue is covered against the assessee by the decision of the Tribunal for the asst. yr. 1981-82 in ITA No.2599(Del)/1985 and confirm the disallowance. 10. Ground No. 5(a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gly dismissed by following the order of the Tribunal for the asst. yr. 1981-82. 13. Ground No.17 relates to the allowance of depreciation amounting to Rs. 24,79,993. The assessee had not claimed any depreciation. The Assessing Officer, however, allowed it. The CIT(A) confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer. The assessee insists that the depreciation is the right of the assessee and it is for it to claim it or postpone it to subsequent assessment year. The learned counsel for the assessee contended that the assessee had not made any claim nor were any particulars filed. In such circumstances, there was no warrant for the Assessing Officer to allow the claim. The learned counsel for the assessee however, conceded that the issue has be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ngs with this transporter. However, certain dispute for demurrage etc. is pending with them. The matter of all their disputes was settled and delivery of various consignments from them was taken in that year. At that time, we had lodged certain claims for short delivery which were not acceptable by them. The details of these claims area as under: . Amount/Rs. Short delivery to Jai Agencies, bill No. 401, dated July24, 1975 (G/R No.142126, dt.July 23,1975) 2,027.27 Short delivery to Kerala SRT against bill No. ST/119, dt., July 29, 1975f (G/R No. 142158, dt.July 28,1975) 4,690.10 . 6,717.37 Since these claims are not acceptable by Economic Organisation, we have adjusted th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appeal of the Revenue is accordingly dismissed. ITA No. 5353 of 1988 18. In this appeal by the assessee, the only dispute is with regard to Rs. 25,000 paid to Shri I,C. Aggarwal, Senior Executive Director of the company as "good work reward". The issue had come up before the CIT(A) and them matter had been remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh determination. The Assessing Officer has disallowed the expenditure on the ground that no evidence was produced to establish the yardstick applied for calculation of the amount. The learned counsel for the assessee contended that the assessee company is paying good work reward to employees on the basis of their performance. In respect of other employees, the Tribunal had the occasion t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
