TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 412X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he decision in Southern Technologies Ltd. v. Joint C.I.T., [2010 (1) TMI 5 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA]. The very same Section 36(1)(vii) and (viia) came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court noticed the Explanation brought in by THE Finance Act, 2001 with retrospective effect from 01.04.1989 and overruled the said decision. We, hence, answer that question of law in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee for the respective years. Cost of compliments supplied to the share holders who attended the annual general body meeting of the appellant company - expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business - Held that:- Compliments given to the shareholders in the Annual G ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (E) For The Respondent : ADV. SRI. JOSE JOSEPH SC FOR INCOME TAX JUDGMENT Vinod Chandran, J . In the above batch, I.T.A.Nos.261 and 351 of 2009 are with respect to the Tribunal orders affirming the order of the lower authorities for the respective assessment years 1996-97 and 1997-98. The assessment orders were from the order passed under Section 143(1) (a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the respective years. However later, scrutiny assessments were carried out under Section 143(3), against which appeals were filed as I.T.A.Nos.258 and 267 of 2009. Hence, leaving the question to be urged in those appeals, I.T.A.Nos.261 and 351 of 2009 are rejected as infructuous. 2. I.T.A.Nos.664 and 258 of 2009 are fro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... very same issue for the assessment year 1995-96, claiming writ off, which has already been answered against the assessee. 4. I.T.A.No.267/2009 raises one other issue, which is as below: Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law and fact in holding that the cost of compliments supplied to the share holders who attended the annual general body meeting of the appellant company is not an expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business of the appellant ? 5. The learned counsel for the assessee brings to our notice a Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 04.02.2008 in I.T.A. No.191/2001, where in similar circumstances in the case of a Bank, the Division ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessee. 8. The second question is with respect to the write off claimed of a bad investment of ₹ 2,11,05,000/-. The Tribunal found that the assessee bank in the subject assessment year was holding it as investment and by a resolution of the Board of Directors on 17.05.1999 the character of the investment was converted into stock-in-trade. The conversion was made in the financial year 1999-2000, which is the relevant previous year to the next assessment year ie: 2000-2001. The Tribunal also noticed that in the subsequent year the issue was remanded back for consideration to the Assessing Officer. However, in the subject assessment year, the assessee had been holding the portfolios as investments, there is no question of claimin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /-. The Assessing Officer by Annexure A order has declined the deduction on the ground that the decision of the High Court in South Indian Bank Ltd. v. C.I.T., [2003] 262 ITR 579 has been taken up in appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. We do not think such a ground could have been taken by the A.O. In any event, the First Appellate Authority reversed the disallowance following the aforecited decision. The Tribunal also considering the issue in the Revenue's appeal, citing the very same decision, allowed the Revenue's appeal. As of now, the issue is covered by a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, [2012] 343 ITR 270 , which upheld the decision as cited ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
