Cit vs D.C.M. Ltd.
2007 Latest Caselaw 1747 Del

ORDER

1. In this appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 directed against the Order dated 20-9-2004 passed by the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench "F" in ITA No. 4203/Delhi/93 and ITA No. 4421/ Delhi/93 relevant for the assessment year 1988-89, the following substantial questions of law have been urged by the revenue:

(a) Whether Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (herein after referred to 'Tribunal') was correct in law in remanding the issue back to the assessing officer for deciding afresh the issue with respect to addition of Rs. 1,28,46,388 in valuation of closing stock in DCM data Product Unit?

(b) Whether Tribunal was correct in law allowing deduction of Rs. 2,12,000 being payment made to employees as good work reward despite the fact that the same was in the nature of bonus and therefore subject to limits prescribed in proviso to Section 36(1)(ii) of the Act?

(c) Whether Tribunal was correct in law in allowing deduction of Rs. 8,14,844 being expenditure incurred in giving momentoes to employees despite the fact that the same was in the nature of bonus and therefore subject to limits prescribed in proviso to Section 36(1)(ii) of the Act?

(d) Whether Tribunal was correct in law in allowing investment allowance of Rs. 2,68,874 on machinery installed in Data Processing Unit despite the fact that the same is covered by Entry 22 of 11th Schedule and no reserve was created during the year?

(e) Whether Tribunal was correct in law in allowing deduction of Rs. 1,59,791 paid by the assessee to Sales Tax Department due to delayed deposits of sales-tax holding the same as compensatory in nature?

(f) Whether Tribunal was correct in law in allowing deduction ofRs. 1,07,23,609 being additional fuel surcharge liability despite the fact that liability neither accrued during this year nor paid during thisyear?

2. In respect of questions (a), (d) and (f) the admitted position is that a similar question had arisen in ITA No. 930 of 2005 pertaining to the same assessee for the assessment year 1987-88. By an Order dated 22-8-2006we had dismissed the appeal of the revenue on the ground that there was no substantial question of law. Following the order dated 22-8-2006 we hold that no substantial question of law arises in respect of questions (a),(d) and (f).

3. Insofar as questions (b) and (c) are concerned, the Tribunal had relied upon an order passed in respect of other assessment years, that is, 1982-83,1985-86 and 1986-87. These orders were accepted by the revenue. There is no reason why the revenue should take a different stand in respect of the present assessment year.

4.Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that no substantial question of law arises for our consideration so far as questions (b) and (c) are concerned.

5. So far as question (e) is concerned, the admitted position is that in view of Mahalakshmi Sugar Mills Co. v. CIT , no substantial question of law arises.

The appeal is dismissed.