TMI Blog2013 (2) TMI 789X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in directing to allow the expenditure on canteen supplies and provisions for visitors in the guest house as regular business expenditure on the maintenance of the guest house even though the same is in the nature of entertainment expenses and has to be disallowed as per provisions of Section 37(4) of the Income Tax Act? (c) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in deleting the addition of ₹ 4,27,07,623/in respect of excise duty paid on the finished goods lying in the closing stock? (d) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that Share Dilution expenses incur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irecting the Assessing Officer to exclude the cost attributable 27.02 acres of land at Aligarh (out of 40.87 acres of land of FPD) while recomputing capital gain on the sale of family products division (FPD) also in holding that no cost of acquisition has been incurred by the assessee on transferred capital asset in question even though the cost of acquisition in respect of the said land at Aligarh was to taken at Rs. Nil or fair market value of this land as on 1st day of April, 1981 at the option of the assessee as per provisions of the section 55(2)(b)(2) of the Income Tax Act? (i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding the transfer of Family Products Undertaking by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Question (a) is concerned, Counsel for the parties state that by the impugned order, the Tribunal has allowed the Respondent Assessee's claim by following its order for the Assessment Year 199091 (being Income Tax Appeal No.4494/M/99 dated 28th July, 2008). The Counsel for the Revenue states that the order of the Tribunal for the Assessment Year 199495 has been accepted by the Revenue. In view of the above, we see no reason to entertain Question (a). 3 So far as Question (b) is concerned, the Tribunal by its impugned order has allowed the claim of the RespondentAssessee for canteen supplies and provisions by following its order for the Assessment Year 1994-95 (being Income Tax Appeal No.4494/M/99 dated 28th July, 2008). The Counsel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peal No.4494/M/99 dated 28th July, 2008). The Counsel for the Revenue informed us that the order of the Tribunal for the Assessment Year 1994-95 has been accepted by the Revenue. In view of the above, we see no reason to entertain Question (e). 7 So far as Question (f) is concerned, we find that the impugned order of the Tribunal has followed its order in the RespondentAssessee's own case for the Assessment Year 199495 (being Income Tax Appeal No.4494/M/99 dated 28th July, 2008). The Counsel for the Revenue states that the order of the Tribunal for the Assessment Year 1994-95 has been accepted by the Revenue. In view of the above, we see no reason to entertain Question (f). 8 So far as Question (g) is concerned, the Counsel for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n accepted by the Revenue. Further, the Tribunal has also followed the decision of this Court in the matter of CIT v/s. General Insurance Corporation of India reported in 254 ITR page 204. In view of the above, we see no reason to entertain Question (j). 11 So far as Question (k) is concerned, Counsel for the Revenue states that in respect of the same RespondentAssessee, the Revenue had filed an Appeal against the order of the Tribunal for the Assessment Year 1991-92 in this Court being Income Tax Appeal No.1033 of 2009. This Court by order dated 5th March, 2012 refused to entertain an identical issue as raised by the Revenue. In view of the above, we see no reason to entertain Question (k). 12 So far as Question (l) is concerned, we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
