9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (7) TMI 22X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ideration and rejecting the assessee's additional ground raised in this behalf ? Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the expenditure of Rs. 2,500 incurred by the assessee in the preparation of the income-tax return was covered by section 80VVof the Income-tax Act and, therefore, not allowable under section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?" The assessee filed the return of income on June 22, 1982, declaring a total income of Rs. 84,66,140. The relevant assessment year is 1982-83. While making the assessment, the Assessing Officer charged interest under section 216 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. In appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (appeals), the Commissione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had erred in not giving any reason for charging of this interest. We, therefore, find no reason for allowing the assessee to take up this ground at this stage or any substance in this ground on merits which is hereby rejected." Thereafter a miscellaneous application was filed and that was also rejected by the Tribunal on May 20, 1986. In the second question, there is a dispute regarding the claim of Rs. 16,102 spent by the assessee on legal charges paid to advocates and chartered accountants. Out of that amount, the Assessing Officer allowed only Rs. 5,000 under section 8OVV and the balance amount has been disallowed. The assessee further challenged the balance amount disallowed by the Assessing Office ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... art thereof has been disallowed. The Tribunal was right in its approach in disallowing the payment of fees to chartered accountants for filing the returns and preparing the accounts after the close of the year and for litigation to contest the tax imposed. We do not find that the payment of fees incurred for such type of jobs was for the business of the assessee. It relates to the income and that income has already been earned in the previous year, to contest the tax imposed cannot be said to be for the purpose of business, particularly when a negligible part of the amount of fees has been disallowed. We find no justification to interfere in such disallowance, i.e., only Rs. 2,090. Therefore, no interference is called for in both the issu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
