M/S J.K.Synthetics Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income Tax
2011 Latest Caselaw 2859 Del

*                   THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                 Judgment reserved on: 16.05.2011
                                 Judgment delivered on: 27.05.2011

+                             ITR No. 27/1997


M/S. J.K. SYNTHETICS LTD.                         ...... PETITIONER


                                   Vs


COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX                        ..... RESPONDENT

Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner : Mr. P.N. Monga & Mr. Manu Monga For the Respondent : Mr. N.P. Sahni & Mr. Rakesh Sinha

CORAM :-

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No

2. To be referred to Reporters or not ? No

3. Whether the judgment should be reported No in the Digest ?

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

1. By way of the captioned reference, we have been called

upon to adjudicate the following questions of law :-

(i). Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. ITAT was justified in law in confirming the disallowance of Rs.3,65,000/- under the provisions of

Section 40(C) in respect of the payments made to five directors of the company in excess to the limit of Rs.72,000/- prescribed by the provisions of the said Section?

(ii). Whether the ITAT was justified in not allowing deduction of Rs.79,935/- from chargeable income being sundry credit balance written back in respect of four parties holding that the assessee had received benefit in respect of the amount and also that there was no cessation of liability?

(iii). Whether the ITAT was justified in upholding the disallowance of Rs.77,405/- out of the building repairs being expenses of Holiday Home known as Kamla Castle at Mussorie for the benefit of the employees going on holidays there?

(iv). Whether the ITAT was justified in holding that the water charges amounting to Rs.1,97,467/- and Rs.61,816/- are not admissible deduction?"

2. The captioned reference pertained to the Assessment Year

1982-1983.

Question No.(i)

3. In so far as question no.(i) is concerned, we are informed by

the learned counsel for the parties that a similar question of law

was raised in ITR No.285/1987 in the Assessment Year 1977-1978

and in ITR No.201/1989. Accordingly, the said question is

answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.

Question No.(ii)

4. Mr. Monga has submitted that he does not wish to seek an

opinion from us with regard to the said question. It is ordered

accordingly.

Question Nos.(iii) & (iv)

5. As regards question nos. (iii) and (iv) are concerned, Mr.

Monga fairly submits that he does not wish to press the same. It

is ordered accordingly.

The reference is disposed of with the aforesaid orders.

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

SANJAY KISHAN KAUL,J

MAY 27, 2011 yg