TMI Blog1998 (9) TMI 65X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r concerned years and as such it would be difficult for the assessee to press for obtaining the tax benefit once again by pressing for a favourable answer to its question in that regard. The assessee has also conceded that in so far as the proper method of deduction of a debenture premium payable at the end period of the debenture is concerned, it is a pro rata method, whereby the extra premium is to be spread over all the years which are occupied between the date of issue and the date of ultimate redemption. On the basis of this concession the assessee does not and cannot ask for a favourable answer to the questions referred at its instance in regard to deduction for the liability to pay debenture premium. Naturally when the assessee i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 65. The references are given in the Supreme Court judgment. Mr. Bajoria, appearing for the assessee, relied heavily on this Supreme Court case and supported the proposition that deductions are to be spread over in all the years mentioned above. In our case we are concerned not with debentures issued at a discount from the face value but with debentures which carry a premium to be paid at the end of the entire period, if the debentures are held throughout. We do not see any distinction between a discount and a premium. The result in both is that something over and above the face value and the specified interest is paid, the accounting procedure in one case being by way of a preliminary deduction from the mentioned amount, and the account ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and as such these submissions of Mr. Agarwal are not submissions on points of law which arise before us. In regard to these machines, Mr. Bajoria gave us the case of CIT v. National Engineering Industries Ltd. (Income-tax Reference No. 282 of 1987), where, following an earlier decision, in the case of Peerless consultancy, deductions were found as allowable in regard to data processing machinery. Mr. Agarwal submitted that notwithstanding this decision we should take the step of referring the matter to a larger Bench in view of, what according to him was, a contrary decision in CIT v. Technico Enterprise P. Ltd. [1994] 206 ITR 36 (Cal). With due respect, Mr. Agarwal's submission is not acceptable in this regard also. The above case was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tems of expenditure and claimed deduction. The case relied upon by Mr. Agarwal in this regard being the case reported in Coates of India Ltd. v. CIT [1994] 205 ITR 373 (Cal), is distinguishable distinctly on facts as that case related to perquisites and expenditure in relation to cars owned by the employees whereas here we are concerned with the company's own cars and the company's own drivers. Mr. Agarwal's submission that it is contrary to reasonable legislative intent that there should be a ceiling and restriction regarding disallowance so far as drivers' salaries are concerned, and yet that there should be no such disallowance or restriction in regard to the provident fund and bonus of the very same drivers is also an unacceptable a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
