Enkay (India) Rubber Co. (P) Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income Tax
2003 Latest Caselaw 340 Del

JUDGMENT

1. The appellant has preferred this appeal against the order made by the Tribunal, dt. 8th April, 2002, the copy of which is placed as Annexure A-l.

2. The grievance made by the appellant is that on the facts and circumstances of the case, the expenditure of Rs. 35,360 which were incurred on the education of Shri Manish Jain, who was a 'trainee' was allowable as business expenditure. According to the appellant, this is a question of law which is required to be considered. It is required to be noted that the Tribunal on appreciation of the matter placed before it has rendered the decision for the asst. yr. 1992-93. So far as Manish Jain in concerned, he was not in employment of the company. He was a relative of a director. assessed's reply was not found acceptable by the authority concerned. It has also been pointed out by the assessing authority that on hypothetical situation, benefit cannot be granted and, therefore, it is disallowed. The Tribunal, on appreciation of material facts, confirmed the finding. Section 37 of the IT Act if perused, clearly indicates that only expenditure which is expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business is to be allowed as a deduction: We are satisfied that the Tribunal has committed no error in reaching the conclusion. In the opinion of the Court, it cannot be said that the finding is perverse. The amount was not expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. That being so, it was rightly not allowed as a deduction in computing the income chargeable under the Act. The impugned decision has been passed on a pure appreciation of the facts and as such that would not give rise to any question of law. There is no merit in the appeal and, therefore, the appeal stands dismissed.