9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 1519X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rship fee paid to M/s. Sreebala P. Ltd. 3. Having heard both sides and perused the relevant material on record, it is noticed that the authorities below have relied on their respective decisions taken in the earlier years on the same ground for the purpose of not allowing and allowing the deduction. The appeal of the assessee for the immediately preceding assessment year, i.e., 2004-05 came up for decision before the Tribunal. Vide order in Deputy CIT v. Philips Carbon Black Ltd. I.T.A. No. 566/Kol/2009 ([2012] 146 TTJ (Kol) 175 ), the Tribunal has accepted the assessee's claim on this issue by following the earlier order of the Tribunal. Relevant discussion is made in paragraph 3 of the Tribunal order (a copy of which is available on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1,567 15.09.04 - Unpaid sales tax 6. The Assessing Officer did not allow the deduction in respect of these amounts as there was delay in making payments of such statutory liabilities beyond the period prescribed under the respective Act or there was no payment. The learned got convinced with the assessee's submissions and allowed the relief by noticing that all, except the amount of sales tax of Rs. 1,567, were paid before the due date as prescribed under section 139(1) of the Act. The Revenue has challenged the decision of the learned on the point. 7. After considering the rival submissions and perusing the relevant materials on record, we find that the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Alom Extrusion ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t was explained that the assessee was the largest carbon black manufacturer in the country having manufacturing facilities at several places and also having offices and warehouses at different locations in the country to cater to business needs. For this purpose, the assessee stated to have obtained the exclusive flying rights of an aircraft for which the above referred payment was made. It was also explained that STSL was to incur all costs and expenses associated with the operation of the aircraft. The Assessing Officer opined that the assessee failed to explain the business expediency of incurring such expenditure. In the absence of any explanation from the assessee about the log book explaining the business purpose, the held that a part ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nesh Mills Ltd. v. CIT [2002] 254 ITR 673 (Guj) has held that there can be no disallowance of expenses by considering the personal use of the assets by the directors. It has further been held that this disallowance cannot be sustained by treating the expenditure as for non-business purpose. The Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in Deputy CIT v. Haryana Oxygen Ltd. [2001] 76 ITD 32 (Delhi) has also taken similar view. Under these circumstances, we are therefore of the considered opinion that the learned was justified in deleting this addition. The impugned order is accordingly upheld on this issue.
10. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
The order pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned hereinabove at caption page. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
