TMI Blog1990 (12) TMI 154X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 82 itself. 4. We have considered the arguments of the learned counsel so also the orders of the authorities below and have also perused the material on record. After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not agree with the arguments advanced on behalf of the assessee that there was evidence to prove that all the expenses had been incurred only for the purposes of assessee's business and hence we are of the opinion that the ld. CIT(A) was justified in estimating a part of the expenses as having been incurred for the purposes of assessee's business in the two years and in having given relief to the assessee during these two years to the extent given by him. This objection of the assessee for both the years is rejected. 5. The next objection of the assessee is regarding an amount of Rs. 1,05,000 claimed to have been paid to Dr. Francis Brunel who was formerly an Ambassador of France in India. Very detailed and learned arguments have been advanced before us by the ld. counsel for the assessee and most of them have also been discussed by the ld. CIT(A) in his order. Assessee had claimed that it had given Rs. 1,05,000 to Dr. Francis Brunel for a write up and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Connected with the same type of expenditure is an expenditure amounting to Rs. 50,000 claimed to be payment to M/s Khapp Communications, U.S.A. as a reimbursement of expenses incurred by publishers during their stay and visit to India (Udaipur) and expenses in connection with their printing and publication of the write up, photographs, etc. in Architect Digest "Architectural Meaning". The arguments on behalf of the assessee in this regard were also the same as they were in connection with the payment to Dr. Brunel. The learned Departmental Representative had, on the other hand, argued that it was not even necessary for the assessee to prove that business had actually increased as a result of this publicity but what was necessary was to prove that the publications which resulted in publicity of assessee's business were as a result of the efforts put in by the assessee and that they were not merely reimbursements given at the sweet will of the assessee or the Maharaja of Udaipur who and whose members of the family happened to be Managing Director or the Directors of the assessee-company. 7. We have carefully considered the arguments from both the sides and have perused the orders ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e has been decided by the Tribunal in assessee's own case for the asst. yr. 1983-84 in ITA No. 1084/Jp/87 dt. 2nd Sept., 1988. Since it has been held that these expenses are allowable, the disallowance of Rs. 3,000 for each of the two years is directed to be deleted. 9. The next objection of the assessee is regarding disallowance of Rs. 19,707 claimed to be law and professional expenses incurred by the assessee for obtaining a valuation report. Shri Ranka after arguing that although it was allowable in the asst. yr. 1981-82, suggested that if it is not allowed in 1981-82 it may be allowed for the asst. yr.. 1982-83. We find his request reasonable because this claim had been made in the asst. yr. 1982-83 also and hence, the disallowance in the asst. yr. 1981-82 is upheld but it is directed to be allowed in the asst. yr. 1982-83 in which year that liability can be said to have crystallized. Accordingly, the objection for the asst. yr. 1981-82 is rejected but for the asst. yr. 1982-83 is allowed. 10. The next objection of the assessee for both the years is regarding a disallowance under s. 40A(8) of the IT Act. However, this ground was withdrawn for both the years and hence, for b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ount the observations of the Tribunal in assessee's case for the asst. yr. 1983-84 referred to above. 15. The next objection of the assessee for the asst. yr. 1981-82 is regarding a claim of depreciation for 15 months. The authorities below took the view that since the assessee had changed its accounting year to 15 months and since the Assessing Officer had imposed a condition that the accounting year could be allowed to be changed only if depreciation for 12 months was agreed to be allowed, the depreciation for 12 months had rightly been allowed and the extra claim of 25 per cent on the basis of 15 months could not be allowed. The learned counsel, however, drew our attention to provisions of r. 5(1) of the IT Rules according to which the depreciation for a longer period was permissible if the previous year exceeded one year. He further referred to the decision reported in VXL India Ltd. vs. ITO Ors. (1987) 168 ITR 805 (Guj) according to which such a claim was allowable. He further referred to the decision reported in J.K. Synthetics Ltd. vs. O.S. Bajpai, ITO (1976) 105 ITR 864 (All) according to which the Assessing Officer could not impose a condition which was against provisi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
