TMI Blog2009 (10) TMI 924X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w:- (i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT was right in law in dismissing of appeal of the Department against the order of CIT (A) deleting the disallowance on account of foreign travel expenses of Managing Director i.e. Sh. K.C. Tapedar by ignoring the facts that out of the total foreign travel period from 11.08.1993 to 31.08.1993 was personal in nature as no appointments were shown for this period. (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT was right in law in confirming the order of CIT (A) in restricting the deletion of commission paid to MD and executive employees of the company to the extent of 50%. (iii) Whether on the facts and in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stion, the following issues arose about which dispute in this appeal is relevant:- (i) foreign travel expenses on account of foreign visits by its MD and his wife; (ii) deduction of commission paid to MD and the executives; (iii) expenditure of use of car and telephones by the Directors and executives; (iv) writing off the duty draw back; (v) claim for provision made for salary of retrenched employees, which was carried forward for the last several years without actual payment; and (vi) sale of scrap was not added to the total income while calculating deduction under section 80HHC. 3. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim with regard to foreign travel expenses on account of foreign visits by its M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. Learned counsel for the revenue submitted that the foreign travel expenses were rightly disallowed by the Assessing Officer as the same had no nexus with the business purpose. Similar is the objection with regard to deletion of commission paid to the MD and the executives and expenses of car and telephones. The finding with regard to writing off duty draw back, allowing provision for salary to retrenched employees and not including income derived from the sale of scrape in the total turnover were erroneous. 6. Learned counsel for the assessee points out that proposed question (i) is not a substantial question of law. Reliance has been placed on the order of this Court dated 15.9.2009 in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it was projected in the assessment year for the year 1998-1999. The balance amount was included in the assessment year for the year 2006-2007. The provisions are, thus, genuine. As regard question (vi), apart from submitting that this question cannot be held to be a substantial question of law as the amount involved is ₹ 3797/-, learned counsel for the assessee drew our attention to the finding of the Tribunal that the amount of scrap was not incidental to the activities of manufacturing and export and he submitted that, in the circumstances, it has been held in CIT v Madras Motors Ltd., (2002) 257 ITR 60 (Mad.), CIT v. Ashok Leyland Ltd., (2007) 297 ITR 107 (Mad.), CIT v Vardhman Polytex Ltd., (2007) 296 ITR 382 (P H), that the amou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
