9911796707
TMI Blog1982 (8) TMI 96X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s been held by the Special Bench of the ITAT in the case of M/s Geoffrey Manners & Co. Ltd. (I.T,A. No. 1296(Bom) of 1976-77) that the provision of s. 40(c) and not 40A(5) are applicable to the case of a Directors employee of a company. To the same effect is the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Addl. CIT vs. Tarun Commercial Mills Ltd. 1977 CTR (Guj) 21: (1978) 113 ITR 745 (Guj). Since the impugned order of the CIT(A) is in conformity with the aforesaid decisions of the Tribunal and the Gujarat High Court, we uphold the same. 3. It is stated by the ld. Rep. of the assessee before us that the CIT(A) has committed a clerical mistake in working the actual amount of disallowance under s. 40(c) for the asst. yr. 1977-78. The C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... who export their own goods in the same. On these facts, the assessee claimed weighted deduction under s. 35B in respect of the following expenditure: Sl. No. Assessment year Nature of expenditure Amount of expenditure (i) 1975-76 (a) Salary for staff Rs. 40,131 (ii) 1976-77 (b) Membership fee & subscription Rs. 2,511 (iii) 1977-78 (c) Designing & printing of folders Rs. 5,168 Salary for staff Rs. 27,687 Salary for staff Rs. 61,320 7. The ITO observed that the expenses in question were incurred by the assessee in connection with its normal business in India and that there was no evidence to prove that these expenses related to the export business, if any. He, therefore, disallowed the claim of the assessee. 8. On app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee to them or whether they resold the same in the markets in India. He further pointed out that, after holding that the supply of packing materials to the exporters did not tantamount to "exports", the CIT(A) was not justified in the granting weighted deduction to the assessee in respect of the expenditure in question; more so when there was no material on the record to suggest that the members of the staff, in respect of whose salaries weighted deduction was claimed, really looked after any export business of the assessee. He further submitted that the case of Indian Hotels Ltd. referred to by the CIT(A) in his order was distinguishable and did not cover the present case. According to him therefore, the assessee was not entitled ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in respect of the goods, services or facilities in which the assessee deals or for obtaining information regarding the markets outside India for such goods, services or facilities or for furnishing to a person outside India samples of technical information for the promotion for the sale of such goods, etc. That being so, the assessee is not entitled to weighted deduction under sub-cls. (i),(ii) and (vi) of s. 35(b) as claimed by it. Further, there is no material on the record to prove that the assessee had entered into any agreement or arrangement with the exporters for exporting their goods in the bags and containers manufactures by it or for pooling the export expenses so as to be entitled to claim weighted deduction under s. 35B as envi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
