TMI Blog1992 (9) TMI 62X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... right in law in holding that the expenditure of Rs. 23,782 incurred by the assessee on construction of a new wall was allowable as revenue expenditure ? (2) At the assessee's instance: Whether, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in not allowing the provision of Rs. 12,38,797 made for payment of gratuity to the employee in view of the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? (3) Whether, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in not allowing the claim of Rs, 2,41,715 as bonus or as trade loss under Income-tax Act, 1961 ? (4) Whether, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in not allowing Rs. 65,766 being bank guarantee comm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inery was regarded as capital expenditure in that case. Therefore, question No. 4 will have to be answered in the affirmative, i.e., against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. Question No. 1 requires us to consider whether expenditure of Rs. 23,782 incurred by the assessee on construction of a new wall was allowable as revenue expenditure. The assessee was required to demolish one side wall around his premises by the municipality. For that purpose, the municipality had given a notice or giving a set-back to the old compound wall for the purpose of widening the road running by the side of that road. Thus, this clearly appears to be a case of demolition of a wall and rebuilding the same in order to protect the property of the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n applying a wrong provision. The claim pertains to the calendar year 1970. The proviso which has been relied upon by the Tribunal was added by the Payment of Bonus (Amendment) Act, 1976, in section 36 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, with effect from September 25, 1975. So, at the relevant time, the said proviso was not in existence. At that time, the proviso read as under : " Provided further that the amount of the bonus ( not being bonus referred to in the first proviso ) or commission is reasonable with reference to (a) the pay of the employee and the conditions of his service ; (b) the profits of the business or profession for the previous year in question ; and (c) the general practice in similar business or profession." The Tribuna ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
