TMI Blog1974 (12) TMI 7X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... circumstances of the case, was the assessee-company entitled to unilateral relief under section 49D of the Income-tax Act, 1922, for the assessment years 1956-57, 1958-59, 1959-60, 1960-61 and 1961-62 in respect of the dividends received by the assessee on the shares of foreign companies held by it ? " For the assessment year 1961-62 : " (b) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, was the assessee-company entitled to claim deduction under section 10(2)(xv) on the sum of Rs. 1,00,000 contributed by it to the Ahmedabad Advance Mills on the occasion of its golden jubilee celebrations ? " For the assessment year 1956-57 : " (c) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was assessable in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g agent of Ahmedabad Advance Mills. On the occasion of the golden jubilee celebrations of the managed mills, the assessee-company contributed Rs. 1,00,000 to the management. That amount was given to the mills without being earmarked for any particular business purpose. That amount was utilised by the managed mills for the construction of a canteen for its workers. The assessee-company claimed that deduction as a permissible deduction. The claim was rejected by the Income-tax Officer, who held that it was not an expenditure incurred by the assessee-company as claimed on welfare amenities for the workers and that it was of a Capital nature. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner upheld disallowance on the ground that it was capital expenditure. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which the Tribunal could have arrived at such a conclusion. The Supreme Court proceeded to hold that in every case it is a question of fact whether the expenditure was expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the trade or business of the assessee. The question posed does not proceed upon the footing that there was no evidence or material before the Tribunal to arrive at several conclusions that it did, which have been earlier set out. In my view, applying the decision of the Supreme Court in Chandulal Keshavlal and Co.'s case [1960] 38 ITR 601 above cited, it would, in these circumstances, be a question of fact for the Tribunal to consider and adjudicate upon, and, inasmuch as the basis of its decision has not been questioned, it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
