Delhi High Court
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Usha Sales Ltd. (No. 2) on 21 March, 1989
Equivalent citations: 1990 182 ITR 453 Delhi
Author: B Kirpal
Bench: B Kirpal, C Chaudhary
JUDGMENT
B.N. Kirpal, J.
1. This is a petition under the section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, whereby the petitioner seeks a direction that the Tribunal should state the case and refer the following questions of law to this court :
" (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessed was entitled to the deduction under the head 'Entertainment expenses' though the same was hit by the provisions of section 37(2A) ?
(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessed was entitled to the expenditure incurred by it under the head 'Shree Ram Jayanti expenses' though there was no nexus between the expenditure incurred and the business run by the assessed-company ?
(3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessed was entitled to weighted deduction under section 35B on the expenditure incurred by it under the heads 'Customs duty' clearing charges, bad debts, expenses incurred by foreign branches etc. ?
(4) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessed was entitled to an amount of Rs. 4,361 incurred by the export division of the assesseds under the head 'Entertainment expenses' ?
(5) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessed was entitled to the expenditure incurred by it under the head 'Shree Ram Jayanti expenses' though there was no nexus between the expenditure incurred and the business run by the assessed-company ?
(6) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessed was entitled under the head 'Meeting and Conference expenses' though the expenditure was clearly in the nature of entertainment and thus was in violation of the provisions of section 37(2A) ?
(7) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessed was entitled to the expenses incurred for marble flooring though this expenditure had resulted in enduring benefit to the assessed-company ?
(8) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessed was entitled to weighted deduction on expenses which were general in nature and thus not covered under any of the clauses of section 35B ? "
2. In our opinion, except two questions, the other questions are questions of fact. The two questions which alone should be referred to this court by the Tribunal are :
" (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessed was entitled to the deduction under the head 'Entertainment expenses' of a sum of Rs. 28,734 ?
(2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessed was entitled to an amount of Rs. 4,361 by way of weighted deduction under section 35B of the Act ? "
3. We direct the Tribunal to state the case and refer the aforesaid two questions of law. The petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
