TMI Blog2010 (7) TMI 259X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1961 is correct - assessment of the quantum of expenditure attributable to disallowance under section 37(2) and the permissible expenditure - interest under Section 216 was chargeable and the Tribunal was not justified in directing otherwise - appeal stands decided accordingly - 161 of 2002 - - - Dated:- 20-7-2010 - CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Mr. Krishan Kumar Mehta, Advocate for the revenue. Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate for the assessee. Adarsh Kumar Goel, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act') against order dated 17.1.2001 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... insurance and car repairs falling under section 31 of the Act. It was held that the special provision under section 37(3A) of the Act could only override Section 37 and not Section 31. As regards disallowance under section 37(2), the CIT (A) held that the same had to be limited to the expenditure attributable to the employees of the assessee. Thus, permissible deduction was increased from 25% as allowed by the Assessing Officer to 40%. With regard to interest under section 216 of the Act, the CIT(A) held that the interest will not be chargeable under section 216. The CIT(A) also deleted the addition relating to deduction under the head 'Sales promotion expenditure'. Finding of the Assessing Officer that there was no material to show the sai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 456/-. This ground is partly allowed." Re: (iii) "At the time of hearing of the appeal, ld. Counsel submitted that interest under section 216 was not chargeable. He argued that in view of amendment to sections 28 and 43B which have retrospective effect, advance tax installments would have been in accordance with the total income estimated at the time of payment of advance tax, installment. As such, ld. AO was wrong in charging interest under section 216 of the Act." Re: (iv) "Disallowance of Rs.45,972/-, Rs.29,658, Rs.10,619/-, Rs.5983/- are deleted (para Nos.4 to 7)." 5. When this appeal came up for hearing earlier alongwith ITA No.163 of 2002 on 4.2.2009, the revenue was directed to file affidavit as to why in some cases, appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
