Cit vs Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd.
2001 Latest Caselaw 1156 Del

JUDGMENT

Arijit Pasayat, C.J.

Following questions have been referred for opinion of this court under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by the Tribunal, Delhi Bench-C :

"1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on the interpretation of the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 33 of the Act, the Appellate Tribunal was justified to hold that the assessed-company is entitled to the carry-forward of development rebate, having remained outstanding in the hands of HEIL which amalgamated with the assessed-company with effect from 1-1-1974 ?

2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the expenditure of Rs. 19,429 incurred by the assessed on serving tea, coffee and light refreshments to the representatives of the customers was not in the nature of entertainment and was allowable as a business expenditure ?"

Dispute relates to the assessment year 1974-75.

2. Factual aspects need not be noted in detail in view of the fact that while deciding the issue involved in the first question, the Tribunal had placed reliance on a decision of the Allahabad High Court in Addl. CIT v. Vishnu Industrial Enterprises (1980) 122 ITR 919. The view expressed in the said case was specifically over-ruled by the Supreme Court in Shri Shubhlaxmi Mills Ltd. v. Addl. CIT(I989) 177 ITR 193. Consequentially, we would have answered the question in favor of the revenue but we found that section 34(3)(a) of the Act, as amended by the Finance Act, 1990, has some relevance to the issue, more particularly in view of the fact that expression ,relevant previous year' as stood prior to the amendment has been substituted by the words 'any previous year . . .', to be operative with retrospective effect from 1-4-1962. It would, therefore, be appropriate for the Tribunal to decide as to the effect of the said amendment and the relevance thereof to the dispute at hand. So far as the second question is concerned, it is squarely covered by the decision of the Apex Court in CIT v. Patel Bros. & Co. Ltd. (1995) 215 ITR 165. The second question is, therefore, answered in favor of the assessed and against the revenue.

2. Factual aspects need not be noted in detail in view of the fact that while deciding the issue involved in the first question, the Tribunal had placed reliance on a decision of the Allahabad High Court in Addl. CIT v. Vishnu Industrial Enterprises (1980) 122 ITR 919. The view expressed in the said case was specifically over-ruled by the Supreme Court in Shri Shubhlaxmi Mills Ltd. v. Addl. CIT(I989) 177 ITR 193. Consequentially, we would have answered the question in favor of the revenue but we found that section 34(3)(a) of the Act, as amended by the Finance Act, 1990, has some relevance to the issue, more particularly in view of the fact that expression ,relevant previous year' as stood prior to the amendment has been substituted by the words 'any previous year . . .', to be operative with retrospective effect from 1-4-1962. It would, therefore, be appropriate for the Tribunal to decide as to the effect of the said amendment and the relevance thereof to the dispute at hand. So far as the second question is concerned, it is squarely covered by the decision of the Apex Court in CIT v. Patel Bros. & Co. Ltd. (1995) 215 ITR 165. The second question is, therefore, answered in favor of the assessed and against the revenue.

The reference stands disposed of accordingly.