1993 PLP 374 (PTD)

(d) Income-tax

Reference

Capital or, revenue expenditure

Expenditure on maintenance of garden

Tribunal justified in allowing part of expenditure

No question of law arose

Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss.37 &

256. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in allowing part of the expenses in connection with the maintenance of the garden as revenue expenditure. No question of the law arose from its order. (e) Income-tax

Reference

Business expenditure

Disallowance

Computation of admissible expenditure under S.40(c)

Tribunal justified in holding that pro rata electricity and water charges incurred for official use of premises occupied by Directors was, deductible

No question of law arose. Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss.37 &

256. Tribunal was right in directing that, while computing admissible deduction under section 40(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the pro rata electricity and water charges incurred for alleged official use of the premises occupied by the directors should be allowed. No question of law arose from its order. S.K. Aggarwal for the Commissioner. B. Gupta and R.K. Chaufla for the Assessee. The petitioner seeks reference of the following questions: "(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in allowing part of the expenses in connection with the maintenance of Sikri Garden as revenue expenditure? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.30,000 being notional interest on loan given to Modi Rubber Ltd.? (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in directing that while computing admissible deduction under section 40(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the pro rata electricity and water charges incurred for alleged official use of the premises occupied by the directors should be allowed? (4) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in allowing a sum of Rs.9,36,939 as repairs of old and worn-out plant and machinery as revenue expenditure? (5) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in allowing a sum of Rs.7,012, being cost of presentation articles to the constituents, by ignoring the provisions of rule 6-B of the Income Tax Rules, 1962?" In our opinion, questions Nos. l, 3 and 5 are questions of fact. As far as questions Nos.1 and 3 are concerned, similar questions were sought to be raised in I.T.C. No.2 of 1988, but the said I.T.C. was dismissed by this Court. As far as question No.5 is concerned, the finding of the Income-tax Officer was that this expense of Rs.7,012 is with regard to the giving of items like sarees, etc., to persons who visit the factory under the direction of the management. Rule 6-B applies only in the case of presentation of articles by way of advertisement. It was not claimed by the assessee that items, which were presented were by way of advertisement. This being so, rule 6-B does not apply and the Tribunal's finding was, therefore, correct. Question No.5 also need not be referred. For the aforesaid reasons, we direct the Tribunal to refer questions Nos.2 and 4 to this Court as the same are questions of law. No orders as to costs. M.B.A./42/T.F Order accordingly.