TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 6X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is not in dispute that the expenditure was, in fact, incurred. The only point was that the payment was in connection with services rendered and billed for on 28th February, 1997 and therefore, the expenditure could not be allowed in a subsequent year but that question has not been given much importance by the learned Tribunal for the simple reason that an appeal relating to the year to which the expenditure pertained was also pending and therefore there was, in substance, no reason why the expenditure should not have been allowed. Therefore, the question are of no substance altogether. Disallowance of entrance fees paid to the clubs - ITAT allowed the claim - Held that:- Tribunal in allowing entrance fees paid to the clubs relied on the judgement of Gujrat High Court in the case of Gujrat State Export Corporation Ltd. v. CIT reported in (1993 (9) TMI 52 - GUJARAT High Court) Disallowance of sum paid to employees under Voluntary Retirement Scheme - ITAT allowed the claim - Held that:- The question does not really arise for consideration because the money spent by the assessee in meeting the liability of voluntary retirement was recovered from the subsidiaries. The money so re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hury appeared for the appellant and prayed for liberty to serve which was granted. On 6th February, 2015, after service, the matter appeared when the matter was fixed by consent of the parties for hearing after two weeks. The matter is in the list for some time. Everytime, the matter was called on, the learned advocate for the respondent was found to be present but the learned advocate for the appellant was not present. In the circumstances, learned advocate for the respondent was requested to give a notice to the learned advocate for the appellant. Such notice was given. A duly receipted photocopy of such notice has been put on record by Mr. Bajoria, learned Senior advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent. Today, the matter is appearing under the heading For Dismissal . When the matter was taken up, the learned advocate appearing for the appellant prayed for adjournment. Such prayer is refused. The appeal arises out of a judgement and order dated 1st July, 2004 passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal pertaining to the assessment years 1998-99 and 1999-2000. The following questions of law have been suggested by the appellant though no one appeared in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Limited and Fairlie Place Investment Limited by holding the same as a revenue expenditure of the respondent/assessee? f) Whether in the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned Income Tax Tribunal erred in law in deleting the disallowance of ₹ 1,51,795.00 paid by the respondent/assessee on account of the entrance fees of the club out of total of ₹ 5,95,795.00 and in upholding disallowance for the balance of ₹ 4,44,201.00 paid towards subscription to the club during the year 1999-2000 following the judgment of the Hon ble Gujrat High Court in the case of Gujrat State Export Corporation reported in 209 Income Tax Reports at page 649. g) Whether in the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned Income Tax Tribunal erred in law in deleting the disallowance of ₹ 4,03,44,000.00 paid by the respondent/assessee to its employees during the assessment year 1999-2000 under Voluntary Retirement Scheme ignoring the Board Circular dated 23rd January 2001 referred to by the Assessing Officer and the provisions made under Section 35DDA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and without considering the enduring nature of benefit therefrom derived by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and billed for on 28th February, 1997 and therefore, the expenditure could not be allowed in a subsequent year but that question has not been given much importance by the learned Tribunal for the simple reason that an appeal relating to the year to which the expenditure pertained was also pending and therefore there was, in substance, no reason why the expenditure should not have been allowed. Therefore, the question nos.(d) and (e) are of no substance altogether. So far as the question no.(f) is concerned, the learned Tribunal in allowing entrance fees paid to the clubs relied on the judgement of Gujrat High Court in the case of Gujrat State Export Corporation Ltd. v. CIT reported in (1994) 209 ITR 649. The question no. (g) does not really arise for consideration because the money spent by the assessee in meeting the liability of voluntary retirement was recovered from the subsidiaries. The money so recovered has been offered for taxation and has been taxed as income arising from other sources whereas the expenditure incurred on account of voluntary retirement was disallowed. The obvious incongruity was removed by the learned Tribunal. Therefore, this question is really bas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
