DCIT, Kanpur V. M/s. J.K. Synthetics Ltd., Kanpur

ITA 634/LKW/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2047 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 10 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-08-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 03-07-2015
• Assessment Year: 1998-1999
• Appeal Filed On: 18-10-2010
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Gift; Depreciation; Proportionate interest; Revenue expenditure; Capital expenditure
• Section: 37(1); 37

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH A, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.634/LKW/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR:1998 - 99 & I.T.A. NOS.715 /LKW/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2000 - 01 & I.T.A. NOS.716/LKW/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2001 - 02 & I.T.A. NO.527/LKW/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2002 - 03 DY.C.I.T. - 4, KANPUR. VS. M/S J. K. SYNTHETICS LTD., E - 23, KAMLA NAGAR, JAYKAYLON COLONY, KANPUR. PAN:AAACJ4988M (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY SHRI MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, CIT, D.R. ASSESSEE BY SHRI RAKESH GARG, ADVOCATE DATE OF HEARING 03/07/2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 3 1 /08/2015 O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. FIRST, WE TAKE UP THE REVENUES APPEAL IN ITA NO. 634 /L KW /2010 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1988 - 99. 2. GROUND NO. 1 OF THE APPEAL IS AS UNDER: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.3,02,740/ - ON ACCOUNT OF PROPORTIONATE PREMIUM ON REDEMPTION OF DEBENTURE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT NO PREMIUM WAS PAYABLE BEFORE EXPIRY OF 7 YEARS. 2 3. LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). 4. WE HAVE CONSIDE RED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS RAISED BY REVENUE AS PER GROUND NO. 5 IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 91 - 92 IN I.T.A. NO. 537 AND THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE AS PER PARA 27 TO 29 O F THE TRIBUNAL DECISION IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 91 - 92. SINCE LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY DIFFERENCE IN FACTS IN THE PRESENT YEAR, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW IN THIS YEAR. ACCORDINGLY, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE EA RLIER TRIBUNAL DECISION, THIS GROUND IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS GROUND IS REJECTED. 5. GROUND NO. 2 IS AS UNDER: 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED N HOLDING THAT THE OTHER CONSULTANCY CHARGES OF RS.41,005/ - AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. 6. LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT IDENTICAL ISSU E WAS RAISED BY REVENUE AS PER GROUND NO. 19 IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 91 - 92 IN I.T.A. NO. 537 AND THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE AS PER PARA 72 TO 74 OF THE TRIBUNAL DECISION IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 91 - 92. SIN CE LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY DIFFERENCE IN FACTS IN THE PRESENT YEAR, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW IN THIS YEAR. ACCORDINGLY, 3 RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE EARLIER TRIBUNAL DECISION, THIS GROUND IS DECIDED IN FAV OUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS GROUND IS REJECTED. 8. GROUND NO. 3 IS AS UNDER: 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED N ALLOWING RELIEF OF RS.14,42,047/ - ON ACCOUNT OF MAINTENANCE EXPENSES OF GUEST HOUSE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT MAINTAIN THE BOOKS IN RESPECT OF GUEST HOUSES EXCEPT FOR KOTA GUEST HOUSE, AS WELL AS THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT PRODUCE ANY DETAILS IN RESPECT OF ASSETS AT GUEST HOUSES. 9. LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). 10. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS RAISED BY REVENUE AS PER GROUND NO. 2 8 IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 91 - 92 IN I.T.A. NO. 537 AND THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE AS PER PARA 106 TO 114 OF THE TRIBUNAL DECISION IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 91 - 92. SINCE LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY DIFFERENCE IN FACTS IN THE PRESENT YEAR, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW IN THIS YEAR. ACCORDINGLY, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE EARLIER TRIBUNAL DECISION, THIS GROUND IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS GROUND IS REJE CTED. 11. GROUND NO. 4 IS AS UNDER: 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED N DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.18,18,950/ - ON ACCOUNT OTHER PROFESSIONAL CHARGES EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE THE NEXUS OF EXPEN DITURE WITH BUSINESS IN SPITE OF SPECIFIC OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN. 4 12. LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). 13. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS RAISED BY REVENUE AS PER GROUND NO. 20 IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 91 - 92 IN I.T.A. NO. 537 AND THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE AS PER PARA 75 TO 77 OF THE TRIBUNAL DECISION IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 91 - 92. SINCE LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY DIFFERENCE IN FACTS IN THE PRESENT YEAR, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW IN THIS YEAR. ACCORDINGLY, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE EARLIER TRIBUNAL DECISION, THIS GROUND IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS GROUND IS REJECTED. 14. GROUND NO. 5 IS AS UNDER: 5. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE GUARANTEE CHARGES OF RS.41,2,743/ - AS REVENUE EX PENDITURE. EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT ESTABLISH THAT ALL THE EXPENSES WERE REVENUE IN NATURE AND WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY RELATED TO THE BUSINESS. 15. LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). 16. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS RAISED BY REVENUE AS PER GROUND NO. 1 7 IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 91 - 92 IN I.T.A. NO. 537 AND THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE AS PER PARA 63 TO 65 OF THE TRIBUNAL DECISION IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 91 - 92. SINCE LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE COULD NOT PO INT OUT ANY DIFFERENCE IN FACTS IN THE PRESENT YEAR, WE DO NOT 5 FIND ANY REASON TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW IN THIS YEAR. ACCORDINGLY, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE EARLIER TRIBUNAL DECISION, THIS GROUND IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS GROUND IS REJECT ED. 17. GROUND NO. 6 IS AS UNDER: 6. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,39,627/ - ON ACCOUNT OF GARDENING CHARGES IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE EXPENSES WERE NOT PROPERLY VERIFIABLE, EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH THE PROPER VOUCHERS FOR VERIFICATION IN SPITE OF SPECIFIC OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN. 18. LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEAR NED CIT(A). HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 93 - 94 AS PER PARA 241 AND 242 OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER. 19. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL S UBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE TRIBUNAL DECISION IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 93 - 94. LEARNED DR OF THE REVENUE COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY DIFFERENCE IN FACTS AND THEREFORE, WE DO NOT F IND ANY REASON TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW IN THE PRESENT YEAR. THIS GROUND IS REJECTED. 20. GROUND NO. 7 IS AS UNDER: 7. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.9,43,370/ - ON ACCOUNT OF PRESENTATION OF ARTICLES EVEN THOUGH THE EXPENDITURE HIT BY SECTION 37 (2A) OF THE ACT. 6 21. LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). 22. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS RAISED BY REVENUE AS PER GROUND NO. 29 IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 91 - 92 IN I.T.A. NO. 537 AND THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE AS PER PARA 115 TO 117 O F THE TRIBUNAL DECISION IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 91 - 92. SINCE LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY DIFFERENCE IN FACTS IN THE PRESENT YEAR, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW IN THIS YEAR. ACCORDINGLY, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE EA RLIER TRIBUNAL DECISION, THIS GROUND IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS GROUND IS REJECTED. 23. GROUND NO. 8 IS AS UNDER: 8. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.63,35,583/ - UN DER THE HEAD TRAVELING EXPENSES EVEN THOUGH THESE EXPENSES WERE OF ENTERTAINMENT IN NATURE AND HIT BY SECTION 37(2A) OF THE ACT. 24. LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). 25. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS RAISED BY REVENUE AS PER GROUND NO. 9 IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 91 - 92 IN I.T.A. NO. 537 AND THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAIN ST THE REVENUE AS PER PARA 39 TO 41 OF THE TRIBUNAL DECISION IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 91 - 92. SINCE LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY DIFFERENCE IN FACTS IN THE PRESENT YEAR, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW IN THIS YEAR. ACCOR DINGLY, 7 RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE EARLIER TRIBUNAL DECISION, THIS GROUND IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS GROUND IS REJECTED. 26. GROUND NO. 9 IS AS UNDER: 9. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN RESTRICTING THE DISALLOWANCE UP TO THE EXTENT 50% ON ACCOUNT OF EXPENSES ON KAMLA RETREAT IGNORING THAT THESE EXPENSES ARE HIT BY SECTION 37(4) AND 37(5) OF THE ACT. 27. LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). 28. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS RAISED BY REVENUE AS PER GROUND NO. 10(A) IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 90 - 91 IN I.T.A. NO. 486 AND THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY THE TRI BUNAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE AS PER PARA 37 TO 39 OF THE TRIBUNAL DECISION IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 90 - 91. SINCE LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY DIFFERENCE IN FACTS IN THE PRESENT YEAR, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW IN THIS YEAR. ACCORDINGLY, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE EARLIER TRIBUNAL DECISION, THIS GROUND IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS GROUND IS REJECTED. 29. GROUND NO. 10 IS AS UNDER: 10. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.5,30,746/ - ON ACCOUNT OF GUEST HOUSE MAINTAINED IN KAMLA CASTLE AT MUSSORIE EVEN THOUGH NO DETAILS OF THE EXPENDITURE WERE PRODUCE BEFORE HIM AND AS SUCH, THE RELIEF GIVEN IS WITHOUT BASIS . 8 30. LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). 31. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS RAISED BY REVENUE AS PER GROU ND NO. 6 IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 91 - 92 IN I.T.A. NO. 537 AND THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE AS PER PARA 30 TO 32 OF THE TRIBUNAL DECISION IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 91 - 92. SINCE LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY DIFFERENCE IN FACTS IN THE PRESENT YEAR, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW IN THIS YEAR. ACCORDINGLY, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE EARLIER TRIBUNAL DECISION, THIS GROUND IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS GROUND IS REJECTED. 32. GROUND NO. 11 IS AS UNDER: 11. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING RELIEF OF RS.6,90,632/ - BEING THE DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF PROPORTIONATE INTEREST ON THE INTEREST FREE LOANS TO M/S J. K. SATOH AGRICULTURAL MACHINES LTD., WHILE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ESTABLISHED THAT THE ADVANCES HAD BEEN MADE TO THE SUBSIDIARY COMPANY OUT OF BANK OVERDRAFT. 33. LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). 34. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS RAISED BY REVENUE AS PER GROUND NO. 2 IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 91 - 92 IN I.T.A. NO. 537 AND THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE AS PER PARA 5 TO 7 OF THE TRIBUNAL DECISION IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 91 - 92. SINCE LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY DIFFERENCE IN FACTS IN THE PRESENT YEAR, WE DO NOT 9 FIND ANY REASON TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW IN THIS YEAR. ACCORDINGLY, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE EARLIER TRIBUNAL DECISION, THIS GROUND IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS GROUND IS REJECTED. 35. GROUND NO. 12 IS AS UNDER: 12. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING DISALLOWANCE OF RS.24,478/ - ON ACCOUNT OF PAYMENT MADE TO CLUBS IGNORING THE FACT THAT THESE EXPENSES WERE NOT INCURRED FOR NON - BUSINESS PURPOSES. 36. LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER W HEREAS LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). 37. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS RAISED BY REVENUE AS PER GROUND NO. 26 IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 91 - 92 IN I.T.A. NO. 537 AND THE ISSUE WA S DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE AS PER PARA 100 TO 102 OF THE TRIBUNAL DECISION IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 91 - 92. SINCE LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY DIFFERENCE IN FACTS IN THE PRESENT YEAR, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW IN THIS YEAR. ACCORDINGLY, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE EARLIER TRIBUNAL DECISION, THIS GROUND IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS GROUND IS REJECTED. 38. GROUND NO. 13 IS AS UNDER: 13. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE - CASE THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT CORRECT IN ALLOWING THE RELIEF OF RS.RS.37,43,994/ - UNDER THE HEAD ' GENERAL CHARGES' FOR WHICH NO DETAILS WERE FILED AS WELL AS THE EXPENSES WERE ALSO NOT PROPERLY VOUCHED AND UNVERIFIABLE. 39. IT WAS AGREED BY BOTH SIDES THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS RAISED IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE A.Y. 1991 - 92 AS PER GROUND NO. 8 IN THAT 10 YEAR AND THE APPEAL WAS HEARD ON 01.05.2015 AND THEREFORE, IN THE PRESENT YEAR, THIS GROUND CAN BE DECIDED ON SIMILA R LINE AS PER TRIBUNAL ORDER IN THAT YEAR. 40. WE FIND THAT IN A.Y. 1991 - 92 IN ASSESSEES OWN APPEAL, THIS ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL PARTLY IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND PARTLY AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AS PER PARA 36 - 38 OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER IN A. Y. 1991 - 92. THEREFORE, IN LINE WITH THE TRIBUNAL ORDER IN ASSESSEES OWN APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1991 - 92, THIS ISSUE IN THE PRESENT YEAR IS DECIDED IN THE SAME MANNER I.E. PARTLY IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND PARTLY AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. THE A.O. SHOUL D ALLOW PART RELIEF AS PER THE DETAILED TRIBUNAL ORDER IN A. Y. 1991 - 92. THIS GROUND IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 41. GROUND NO. 14 IS AS UNDER: 14. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING RELIEF OF RS.74,96,165/ - O N ACCOUNT OF EXPENSES ON EMPLOYEES WELFARE IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE EXPENSES DEBITED UNDER THIS HEAD WERE RELATED TOWARDS ENTERTAINMENT, PRESENTATION OF ARTICLES. GUEST HOUSE EXPENSE AND EXPENSES OF CAPITAL NATURE AS WELL AS THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNIS H HEAD - WISE, BIFURCATION OF EXPENSES IN SPITE OF SPECIFIC OPPORTUNITY GIVEN. 41 (A). LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). 41 (B). WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS RAISED BY REVENUE AS PER GROUND NO. 24 (A) TO 24 (C) IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 91 - 92 IN I.T.A. NO. 537 AND THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE AS PER PARA 87 - 95 OF THE TRIBUNAL DECISION IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 91 - 92. SINCE LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY DIFFERENCE IN FACTS IN THE PRESENT 11 YEAR, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW IN THIS YEAR. ACCORDINGLY, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE EARLIER TRIBUNAL DECISION, THIS GROUND IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS GROUND IS REJECTED. 42. GROUND NO. 15 IS AS UNDER: 15. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,07,914/ - ON ACCOUNT OF CONCURRENT AUDITORS EXPENSES IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE EXPENSES INCLUDED EXPENSES ON FOODING, REFRESHMENT, RAILWAY FARE, GUEST HOUSE ETC. HAVING THE NATURE OF ENTERTAINMENT AND NOT CONNECTED TO THE BUSINESS. 43. LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CA SE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 93 - 94 AS PER PARA 243 AND 244 OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER. 44. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE TRIBUNAL DECISION IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSME NT YEAR 93 - 94. LEARNED DR OF THE REVENUE COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY DIFFERENCE IN FACTS AND THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW IN THE PRESENT YEAR. THIS GROUND IS REJECTED. 45. GROUND NO. 16 IS AS UNDER: 16. ON THE FACTS AND CI RCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE UP TO 80% I.E. RS.68,74,298/ - ON ACCOUNT OF SALES PROMOTION EXPENSES EVEN THOUGH THE EXPENDITURE HIT BY SECTION 37(2A) OF THE ACT BEING ENTERTAINMENT AND PRESENTATION/GIFT EXPEN SES. 12 46. LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). 47. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS RAISED BY REVENUE AS PER GROUND NO. 4(A) TO 4(E) IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 91 - 92 IN I.T.A. NO. 537 AND THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE AS PER PARA 12 TO 26 OF THE TRIBUNAL DECISION IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 91 - 92. SINCE LEARNED D.R. OF TH E REVENUE COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY DIFFERENCE IN FACTS IN THE PRESENT YEAR, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW IN THIS YEAR. ACCORDINGLY, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE EARLIER TRIBUNAL DECISION, THIS GROUND IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS GROUND IS REJECTED. 48. GROUND NO. 17 IS AS UNDER: 17. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.85,265/ - UNDER THE HEAD TRAVELING OUT OF POCKET EXPENSES EVEN THOUGH THESE EXPENSES REL ATED TO GUEST HOUSE EXPENSES AND WERE OF ENTERTAINMENT IN NATURE AND HIT BY SECTION 37(2A) OF THE ACT. 49. LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 93 - 94 AS PER PARA 251 AND 252 OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER. 50. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE TRIBUNAL DECISION IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 93 - 94 AS PER PARA 251 AND 252 OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER. LEARNED DR OF THE RE VENUE COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY 13 DIFFERENCE IN FACTS AND THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW IN THE PRESENT YEAR. THIS GROUND IS REJECTED. 51. GROUND NO. 18 IS AS UNDER: 18. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT (A) IS NOT CORRECT IN ALLOWING THE PROSPECTING EXPENDITURE U/S 35E. 52. LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). 53. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIO NS. WE FIND THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS RAISED BY REVENUE AS PER GROUND NO. 2 IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 90 - 91 IN I.T.A. NO. 486 AND THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE AS PER PARA 6 TO 8 OF THE TRIBUNAL DECISION I N ASSESSMENT YEAR 90 - 91. SINCE LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY DIFFERENCE IN FACTS IN THE PRESENT YEAR, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW IN THIS YEAR. ACCORDINGLY, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE EARLIER TRIBUNAL DECISION, THIS GROUND IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS GROUND IS REJECTED. 54. GROUND NO. 19 IS AS UNDER: 19. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT (A) IS NOT CORRECT IN ALLOWING EQUITY ISSUE EXPENSES U/S 35D. 55. LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). 56. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS RAISED BY REVENUE AS PER GROUND NO. 4 IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 90 - 91 14 IN I.T.A. NO. 486 AND THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE AS PER PARA 12 TO 14 OF THE TRIBUNAL DECISION IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 90 - 91. SINCE LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE COULD NOT POI NT OUT ANY DIFFERENCE IN FACTS IN THE PRESENT YEAR, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW IN THIS YEAR. ACCORDINGLY, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE EARLIER TRIBUNAL DECISION, THIS GROUND IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS GROUND IS REJECTE D. 57. GROUND NO. 20 IS AS UNDER: 20 ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING RELIEF OF RS.6,80,000/ - ON ACCOUNT OF OFFICE MAINTENANCE EXPENSES IGNORING THE FACT THAT THESE EXPENSES WERE ENTERTAINMENT IN NATURE AND SPENT ON FOOD ETC. AS WELL AS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE IN NATURE. 58. LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IN DIS PUTE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 93 - 94 AS PER PARA 281 AND 282 OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER. 59. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IS COV ERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE TRIBUNAL DECISION IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 93 - 94. LEARNED DR OF THE REVENUE COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY DIFFERENCE IN FACTS AND THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW IN THE PRESENT YEAR. THIS GROUND IS REJECTED. 60. GROUND NO. 21 IS AS UNDER: 21. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING RELIEF OF RS.7,23,421/ - ON 15 ACCOUNT OF MESS EXPENSES IGNORING THAT THE EXPENDITURE HIT BY PROVISIO NS CONTAINED U/S 37(4) OF THE I. T. ACT. 61. LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). 62. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS RAISED BY REVENUE AS PER GROUND NO. 12 IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 91 - 92 IN I.T.A. NO. 537 AND THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE AS PER PARA 48 TO 50 OF THE TRIBUNAL DECISION IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 91 - 92. SINCE LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY DIFFERENCE IN FACTS IN THE PRESENT YEAR, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW IN THIS YEAR. ACCORDINGLY, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE EARLIER TRIBUNAL DECISION, THIS GROUND IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS GROUND IS REJECTED. 63. GROUND NO. 22 IS AS UNDER: 22. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING RELIEF OF RS.3,60,000/ - ON ACCOUNT OF EXPENSES ON GUEST HOUSE TAKEN ON RENT IG NORING THAT THE EXPENDITURE HIT BY PROVISIONS CONTAINED U/S 37(4) OF THE I. T. ACT. 64. IT WAS AGREED BY BOTH THE SIDES THAT THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL AGAINST THE ASSESSEE IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 94 - 95 AND IN THIS REG ARD, OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO PARA 362 OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER IN THAT YEAR. ACCORDINGLY, IN THE PRESENT YEAR ALSO, THIS ISSUE IS DECIDED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AND CONSEQUENTLY, GROUND NO. 22 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 65. GROUND NO. 23 IS AS UNDER: 16 23. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING RELIEF OF RS.52,54,890/ - ON ACCOUNT OF EXPENSES ON ARCHITECT AWARD OF THE YEAR IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS NOT IN ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION BUSINESS, AS WELL AS THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO ESTABLISH CLEAR NEXUS OF EXPENDITURE WITH THE BUSINESS. 66. LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED C IT(A). 67. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT THIS ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY LEARNED CIT(A) AS PER PARA 32 AVAILABLE ON PAGES 34 AND 35 OF THE ORDER OF CIT(A). WE FIND THAT IT IS NOTED BY CIT(A) THAT THE DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE BY THE ASSE SSING OFFICER WITH THE FINDING THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS NOT IN ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION BUSINESS EXCEPT FOR THE MANUFACTURE OF ONE ITEM I.E. CEMENT AND THEREFORE, IT IS NOT PERCEPTIBLE AS TO HOW THIS ITEM WILL BENEFIT THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ISSU E IN DISPUTE IS REGARDING EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IN RESPECT OF ARCHITECT AWARD OF THE YEAR. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, EVEN IF THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING OF ONLY ONE TIME OF CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS I.E. CEMENT, SUCH AN EXPENSE ON ACCOUNT OF ARCHITECT AWARD, CAN BE VERY MUCH FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES BECAUSE IT WILL HELP THE ASSESSEE COMPANY TO PROMOTE ITS CEMENT BUSINESS. THIS IS ALSO NOTED BY LEARNED CIT(A) THAT THE SIMILAR CLAIM WAS ALLOWED IN EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR I.E. 94 - 95 AND ALSO IN LATER YEAR I.E. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004 - 05. HENCE, WE DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. THIS GROUND IS REJECTED. 68. GROUND NO. 24 IS AS UNDER: 24. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.75,000/ - ON ACCOUNT OF RECRUITMENT EXPENSES, 17 IGNORING THAT THESE EXPENSES WERE RELATED TO GUEST HOUSE EXPENSES WHICH WERE NOT RELATED TO BUSINESS. 69. LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSME NT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 95 - 96 AS PER PA RA 425 OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER. 70. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE TRIBUNAL DECISION IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 95 - 96. LEARNED DR OF THE REVENUE COUL D NOT POINT OUT ANY DIFFERENCE IN FACTS AND THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW IN THE PRESENT YEAR. THIS GROUND IS REJECTED. 71. GROUND NO. 25 IS AS UNDER: 25. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.18,58,012/ - ON ACCOUNT OF LIABILITIES OF MORE THAN 3 YEARS, EVEN THOUGH THE DEBT WERE EFFECTED WITH CESSATION OF LIABILITIES WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 41(1) OF THE I. T. ACT, 1961. 72. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT LEARNED CIT(A) HAS DELETED THIS ADDITION BY FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE APEX COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SUGAULI SUGAR WORKS (P) LTD. 236 ITR 518. THIS IS NOT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT THE LIABILITY IS NOT APPEARING IN THE BALANCE SHEET. THE ONLY OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS THAT THE LIABILITY IS MORE THAN THREE YEARS OLD. HENCE, UNDER THESE FACTS, THE DISPUTED ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE JUDGMENT O F HON'BLE APEX COURT FOLLOWED BY LEARNED CIT(A). WE, THEREFORE, DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). THIS GROUND IS REJECTED. 18 73. GROUND NO. 26 IS AS UNDER: 26. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING THE RELIEF OF RS.1,52,996/ - ON ACCOUNT OF TAXI HIRE CHARGES EXPENSES, EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT ESTABLISH THAT THESE EXPENSES WERE INCURRED FOR THE BUSINESS PURPOSES IN SPITE OF SPECIFIC OPPORTUNITY GIVEN. 74. LEARNED D. R. OF THE R EVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR AS SESSMENT YEAR 95 - 96 AS PER PARA 405 OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER. 75. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE TRIBUNAL DECISION IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 95 - 96. L EARNED DR OF THE REVENUE COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY DIFFERENCE IN FACTS AND THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW IN THE PRESENT YEAR. THIS GROUND IS REJECTED. 76. GROUND NO. 27(A) IS AS UNDER: 27(A) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMS TANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.16,13,020/ - ON ACCOUNT OF DEPRECIATION RELATABLE TO SCRAP DISCARDED MACHINERY IGNORING THE FACT THAT DURING PRECEDING YEAR THE SCRAP VALUE OF REPAIR OF PLANT & MACHINERY WAS ESTIMA TED AT 10% OF MATERIAL COST OF REPAIRS AND WDV WAS REDUCED. 77. LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). 19 78. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE F IND THAT IT IS NOTED BY LEARNED CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE DISALLOWANCE OUT OF DEPRECIATION ON THE BASIS THAT OUT OF REPAIRS TO PLANT & MACHINERY, 10% OF MATERIAL COST OF SPARES IS TO BE CONSIDERED AS SCRAP VALUE AND THE SAME SHOULD BE REDU CED FROM THE WDV OF THE PLANT & MACHINERY AND CONSEQUENTLY, THE DEPRECIATION IS TO BE REDUCED TO THAT EXTENT. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, UNLESS THIS IS BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE REVENUE THAT THERE IS ANY SCRAP VALUE REALIZED OR IS REALIZABLE ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF SCRAP, NO SUCH ADJUSTMENT CAN BE MADE IN WDV BECAUSE AS PER EXPLANATION 2 BELOW CLAUSE (II) OF SECTION 32(1), WRITTEN DOWN VALUE OF THE BLOCK OF ASSETS SHALL HAVE THE SAME MEANING AS IN CLAUSE (C) OF SUB SECTION (6) OF SECTION 43 OF THE ACT. AS PE R CLAUSE (C) OF SUB SECTION (6) OF SECTION 43, DEDUCTION HAS TO BE MADE FROM OPENING WDV ON ACCOUNT OF SUMS PAYABLE IN RESPECT OF ANY ASSET FALLING WITHIN THAT BLOCK WHICH IS SOLD OR DISCARDED OR DEMOLISHED OR DISTURBED, DURING THAT PREVIOUS YEAR TOGETHER WITH THE AMOUNT OF SCRAP VALUE, IF ANY, SUBJECT TO THIS THAT SUCH DEDUCTION IS NOT EXCEEDING THE WDV. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE SCRAP VALUE SOUGHT TO BE REDUCED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT ON ACCOUNT OF ASSETS BEING SOLD OR DISCARDED OR DEMOLISHED OR D ISTURBED. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSET IS PUT TO REPAIR AND THE MATERIAL USED FOR REPAIR OF PLANT & MACHINERY CANNOT BE SAID TO BE THE SCRAP VALUE ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OR DISCARDING OR DEMOLISHING OR DISTURBING OF THE ASSET IN QUESTION. HENCE, IN OUR CON SIDERED OPINION, THERE IS NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND THEREFORE, WE DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. GROUND NO. 27(A) IS REJECTED. 79. GROUND NO. 27(B) IS AS UNDER 27(B) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING 100% DEPRECIATION ON MACHINERY FOR ENERGY SAVING WHILE SUCH MACHINERY WAS 20 NOT DIRECTLY COVERED BY THIS TYPE OF PLANT & MACHINERY AS MENTIONED IN I. T. RULES BE C ALCULATED TREATING IT AS PLANT & MACHINERY INSTEAD OF PART OF ROADS. 80. LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). 81. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIO NS. WE FIND THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS RAISED BY REVENUE AS PER GROUND NO. 30(C) IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 91 - 92 IN I.T.A. NO. 537 AND THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE AS PER PARA 121 TO 123 OF THE TRIBUNAL DE CISION IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 91 - 92. SINCE LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY DIFFERENCE IN FACTS IN THE PRESENT YEAR, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW IN THIS YEAR. ACCORDINGLY, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE EARLIER TRIBUNAL DE CISION, THIS GROUND IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS GROUND IS REJECTED. 82. GROUND NO. 27(C) IS AS UNDER: 27(C) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.69,611/ - ON ACCOUNT OF DEPRECIATION ON REPAIRS TO PLANT & MACHINERY TREATED AS CAPITAL IN EARLIER YEARS IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE DISPUTED THE ISSUE OF REPAIRS 'TO PLANT & MACHINERY TREATED AS CAPITAL IN EARLIER YEARS BEFORE VARIOUS COURTS. 83. LEARNED D. R. OF T HE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). 84. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT CIT(A) HAS DECIDED THIS ISSUE ON THE BASIS THAT ON SIMILAR ISSUE IN ASSESSM ENT YEAR 94 - 95 AND 95 - 96, DISALLOWANCE WAS DELETED BY HIS PREDECESSOR. OTHERWISE 21 ALSO, WHEN DISALLOWANCE IS MADE OUT OF REPAIR TO PLANT & MACHINERY ON THE BASIS THAT THE SAME IS CAPITAL IN NATURE, DEPRECIATION ON SUCH CAPITAL EXPENDITURE HAS TO BE ALLOWE D AND THEREFORE, WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. GROUND NO. 27(C) IS REJECTED. 85. GROUND NO. 27(D) IS AS UNDER: 27(D) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT (A) WAS NOT CORRECT IN DELETING TH E DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1,66,339/ - ON ACCOUNT OF DEPRECIATION ON AMOUNT OF FOREIGN EXCHANGE RATE FLUCTUATION EVEN THOUGH THE CLAIM WAS HIT BY PROVISIONS OF SECTION 43A. 86. LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). 87. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS RAISED BY REVENUE AS PER GROUND NO. 3 0(A) & 30(B) IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 91 - 92 IN I.T.A. NO. 537 AND THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE AS PER PARA 118 TO 120 OF THE TRIBUNAL DECISION IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 91 - 92. SINCE LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY DIFFERENCE IN FACTS IN THE PRESENT YEAR, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW IN THIS YEAR. ACCORDINGLY, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE EARLIER TRIBUNAL DECISION, THIS GROUND IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS GRO UND IS REJECTED. 88. GROUND NO. 28 IS AS UNDER: 28. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.28,706/ - ON ACCOUNT OF BROKERAGE & COMMISSION EVEN THOUGH THE EXPENSES WERE NOT RELATING T O THE SALE MADE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 22 89. LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). 90. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS RAISED BY REVENUE AS PER GROUND NO. 21 IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 91 - 92 IN I.T.A. NO. 537 AND THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE AS PER PARA 78 TO 80 OF THE TRIBUNAL DECISION IN ASSESSME NT YEAR 91 - 92. SINCE LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY DIFFERENCE IN FACTS IN THE PRESENT YEAR, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW IN THIS YEAR. ACCORDINGLY, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE EARLIER TRIBUNAL DECISION, THIS GROUN D IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS GROUND IS REJECTED. 91. GROUND NO. 29 IS AS UNDER: 29. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.5,77,524/ - ON ACCOUNT OF FINANCE CHARGES EVEN THOUGH THE EXPENSES WERE NOT RELATING TO THE SALE MADE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 92. LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSE SSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 95 - 96 AS PER PARA 432 AND 433 OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER. 93. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE TRIBUNAL DECISION IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 95 - 96. LEARNED DR OF THE REVENUE COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY DIFFERENCE IN FACTS AND THEREFORE, WE DO 23 NOT FIND ANY REASON TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW IN THE PRESENT YEAR. THIS GROUND IS REJECTED. 94. GROUND NO. 30 IS AS UNDER: 30. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.74,15,758/ - UNDER THE HEAD REPAIRS TO PLANT & MACHINERY EXPENSES EVEN THOUGH THESE EXPENSES WERE OF CAPITAL IN NATURE AS WELL AS EXPENSES RELATED TO EARLIER Y EARS, NO DETAILS/IN - COMPLETE DETAILS FURNISHED, NOT RELATED TO BUSINESS AND NOT VERIFIABLE WITH VOUCHERS. 95. LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). 96. W E HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS RAISED BY REVENUE AS PER GROUND NO. 10 IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 91 - 92 IN I.T.A. NO. 537 AND THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE AS PER PARA 42 TO 44 OF THE TRIBUNAL DECISION IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 91 - 92. SINCE LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY DIFFERENCE IN FACTS IN THE PRESENT YEAR, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW IN THIS YEAR. ACCORDINGLY, RESPECTFULLY F OLLOWING THE EARLIER TRIBUNAL DECISION, THIS GROUND IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS GROUND IS REJECTED. 97. GROUND NO. 31 IS AS UNDER: 31. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.89,65,415/ - UNDER THE HEAD REPAIRS TO BUILDING EXPENSES EVEN THOUGH THESE EXPENSES WERE OF CAPITAL IN NATURE AS WELL AS EXPENSES RELATED TO EARLIER YEARS, NO DETAILS/IN - COMPLETE DETAILS FURNISHED, NOT RELATED TO BUSINESS AND NOT VERIFIABLE WITH VOUCHERS . 24 98. LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). 99. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS RAISED BY REVENUE AS PER GROUND NO. 11 IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 91 - 92 IN I.T.A. NO. 537 AND THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE AS PER PARA 45 TO 47 OF THE TRIBUNAL DECISION IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 91 - 92. SINCE LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY DIFFERENCE IN FACTS IN THE PRESENT YEAR, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW IN THIS YEAR. ACCORDINGLY, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE EARLIER TRIBUNAL DECISION, THIS GROUND IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS GROU ND IS REJECTED. 100. GROUND NO. 32 IS AS UNDER: 32. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.18,11,698/ - ON ACCOUNT OF SALES PROMOTION INCENTIVE EVEN THOUGH THE EXPENSES WERE NOT RELATING TO THE SALE MADE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 101. LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 93 - 94 AS PER PARA 261 TO 264 OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER. 102. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE TRIBUNAL DECISION IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 93 - 94. LEARNED DR OF THE REVENUE COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY DIFFERENCE IN FACTS AND THEREFORE, WE DO 25 NOT FIND ANY REASON TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW IN THE PRESENT YEAR. THIS GROUND IS REJECTED. 103. GROUND NO. 33 IS AS UNDER: 33. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD, CIT '(A) HAS ERRED ALLOWING RELIEF OF RS.4,12,408/ - ON ACCOUNT OF PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES IGNORING THAT THESE EXPENSES WERE IN THE NATU RE OF ENTERTAINMENT AS WELL AS SPENT ON GIFTS AND PRESENTATION AND HIT BY SECTION 37(2A) OF THE ACT. 104. LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). 105. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS RAISED BY REVENUE AS PER GROUND NO. 18(A) & 18(B) IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 91 - 92 IN I.T.A. NO. 537 AND THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENU E AS PER PARA 66 TO 68 OF THE TRIBUNAL DECISION IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 91 - 92. SINCE LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY DIFFERENCE IN FACTS IN THE PRESENT YEAR, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW IN THIS YEAR. ACCORDINGLY, RESPE CTFULLY FOLLOWING THE EARLIER TRIBUNAL DECISION, THIS GROUND IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS GROUND IS REJECTED. 106. GROUND NO. 34 IS AS UNDER: 34. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.20,89,332/ - ON ACCOUNT OF TELEPHONE EXPENSES IGNORING THE PERSONAL USE OF TELEPHONES BY OFFICIALS. 107. LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT( A). 26 108. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT THIS ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF SAYAJI IRON AND ENGG. CO. VS. CIT [2002] 253 ITR 749 (GUJ) WHERE IT IS HELD THAT EVEN IF THERE IS PERSONAL USE OF TELEPHONE AND VEHICLES ETC. BY THE DIRECTORS / EMPLOYEES OF THE COMPANY, THE SAME CAN BE INCLUDED IN THE PERQUISITES VALUE OF THE CONCERNED DIRECTOR/ EMPLOYEE BUT THE DISALLOWANCE CANNOT BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF TH E ASSESSEE COMPANY. WE DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A). THIS GROUND IS REJECTED. 109. GROUND NO. 35 IS AS UNDER: 35. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.57,840/ - ON ACCOUNT OF REPAIRS TO OTHER ASSETS EXPENSES, IGNORING THE FACT THAT THESE EXPENSES WERE NOT PROPERLY VOUCHED AS WELL AS NO PROPER DETAILS WERE FURNISHED IN SPITE OF SPECIFIC OPPORTUNITY GIVEN. 110. LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 93 - 94 AS PER PARA 279 AND 280 OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER. 111. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE TRIBUNAL DECISION IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 93 - 94. LEARNED DR OF THE REVENU E COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY DIFFERENCE IN FACTS AND THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW IN THE PRESENT YEAR. THIS GROUND IS REJECTED. 111 (A) IN THE RESULT, THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 27 112. NOW WE TAKE UP THE APPE AL OF THE REVENUE I.E. I.T.A. NO.715/LKW/2010 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000 - 2001. 113. GROUND NO. 1 IS AS UNDER: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE GUARANTEE CHARGES OF RS.1,28,500/ - AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. 114. LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A. R. OF THE A SSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). 115. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS RAISED BY REVENUE AS PER GROUND NO. 17 IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 91 - 92 IN I.T.A. NO. 537 AND THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE AS PER PARA 63 TO 65 OF THE TRIBUNAL DECISION IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 91 - 92. SINCE LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY DIFFERENCE IN FACTS IN THE PRESENT YEAR, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW IN THIS YEAR. ACCORDINGLY, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE EARLIER TRIBUNAL DECISION, THIS GROUND IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS GROUND IS REJECTED. 116. GROUND NO. 2 IS AS UNDER: ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE GARDENING CHARGES OF RS.2,42,266/ - EVEN THOUGH THESE EXPENSES WERE NOT PROPERLY VOUCHED. 117. LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF 28 THE ASSESSEE BY THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 93 - 94 AS PER PARA 241 AND 242 O F THE TRIBUNAL ORDER. 118. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE TRIBUNAL DECISION IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 93 - 94. LEARNED DR OF THE REVENUE COULD NOT P OINT OUT ANY DIFFERENCE IN FACTS AND THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW IN THE PRESENT YEAR. THIS GROUND IS REJECTED. 119. GROUND NO. 3 IS AS UNDER: 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.6,59,330/ - ON ACCOUNT OF ARTICLES INTENDED FOR PRESENTATION IGNORING THE FACT THAT THESE EXPENSES WERE NOT CONNECTED WITH BUSINESS. 120. LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). 121. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS RAISED BY REVENUE AS PER GROUND NO. 29 IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 91 - 92 IN I.T.A. NO. 537 AND THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY T HE TRIBUNAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE AS PER PARA 115 TO 117 OF THE TRIBUNAL DECISION IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 91 - 92. SINCE LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY DIFFERENCE IN FACTS IN THE PRESENT YEAR, WE DO NOT FIND ANY R EASON TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW IN THIS YEAR. ACCORDINGLY, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE EARLIER TRIBUNAL DECISION, THIS GROUND IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS GROUND IS REJECTED. 122. GROUND NO. 4 IS AS UNDER: 29 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMS TANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING RELIEF OF RS.62,61,542/ - ON ACCOUNT OF TRAVELING EXPENSES WERE NOT INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES AND HIT BY PROVISIONS OF SECTION 37(1) OF THE I. T. ACT. 123. LEARNED D. R. O F THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). 124. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS RAISED BY REVENUE AS PER GROUND NO. 9 IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 91 - 92 IN I.T.A. NO. 537 AND THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE AS PER PARA 39 TO 41 OF THE TRIBUNAL DECISION IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 91 - 92. SINCE LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY DIF FERENCE IN FACTS IN THE PRESENT YEAR, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW IN THIS YEAR. ACCORDINGLY, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE EARLIER TRIBUNAL DECISION, THIS GROUND IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS GROUND IS REJECTED. 125. GROUN D NO. 5 IS AS UNDER: 5. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING RELIEF OF RS.6,76,524/ - BEING THE DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF PROPORTIONATE INTEREST ON THE INTEREST FREE LOANS TO M/S J. K. SATOH AGRICULTURAL MACHINES LTD., WHILE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ESTABLISHED THAT THE ADVANCES HAD BEEN MADE TO THE SUBSIDIARY COMPANY OUT OF BANK OVERDRAFT. 126. LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). 127. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS RAISED BY REVENUE AS PER GROUND NO. 2 IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 91 - 92 30 IN I.T.A. NO. 537 AND THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSE SSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE AS PER PARA 5 TO 7 OF THE TRIBUNAL DECISION IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 91 - 92. SINCE LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY DIFFERENCE IN FACTS IN THE PRESENT YEAR, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW IN THIS YEAR. ACCORDINGLY, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE EARLIER TRIBUNAL DECISION, THIS GROUND IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS GROUND IS REJECTED. 128. GROUND NO. 6 IS AS UNDER: 6. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.28,313/ - ON ACCOUNT OF CLUB EXPENSES IGNORING THE FACT THAT THESE EXPENSES WERE NOT CONNECTED WITH BUSINESS. 129. LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). 130. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS RAISED BY REVENUE AS PER GROUND NO. 26 IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 91 - 92 IN I.T.A. NO. 537 AND THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE AS PER PARA 100 TO 102 OF THE TRIBUNAL DECISION IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 91 - 92. SINCE LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY DIFFERENCE IN FACTS IN THE PRESENT YEAR, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO TAKE A CONTRA RY VIEW IN THIS YEAR. ACCORDINGLY, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE EARLIER TRIBUNAL DECISION, THIS GROUND IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS GROUND IS REJECTED. 131. GROUND NO. 7 IS AS UNDER: 7. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT CORRECT IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF 31 RS.46,47,049/ - UNDER THE HEAD 'GENERAL CHARGES' FOR WHICH NO DETAILS WERE FILED. 132. LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT O RDER WHEREAS LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). 133. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS RAISED BY REVENUE AS PER GROUND NO. 8 IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 91 - 92 IN I.T.A. NO. 537 AND THE IS SUE WAS DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN PARTLY IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND PARTLY AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AS PER PARA 36 TO 38 OF THE TRIBUNAL DECISION IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 91 - 92. SINCE LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY DIFFERENCE IN FACTS IN TH E PRESENT YEAR, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW IN THIS YEAR. ACCORDINGLY, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE EARLIER TRIBUNAL DECISION, THIS GROUND IS DECIDED IN THE SAME MANNER I.E. PARTLY IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND PARTLY AGAINST THE ASSESS EE. THE A.O. SHOULD ALLOW PART RELIEF AS PER DETAILED TRIBUNAL ORDER IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 91 - 92. THIS GROUND IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 134. GROUND NO. 8 IS AS UNDER: 8. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.80,69,962/ - ON ACCOUNT OF EMPLOYEES WELFARE EXPENSES EVEN THOUGH NO DETAILS OF EXPENSES WERE FILED AS WELL AS THESE EXPENSES WERE NOT MEANT WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES. 135. LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). 136. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS RAISED BY REVENUE AS PER GROUND NO. 24(A) TO 24(D) IN 32 ASSESSMENT YEAR 91 - 92 IN I.T.A. NO. 537 AND THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE AS PER PARA 87 TO 95 OF THE TRIBUNAL DECISION IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 91 - 92. SINCE LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY DIFFERENCE IN FACT S IN THE PRESENT YEAR, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW IN THIS YEAR. ACCORDINGLY, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE EARLIER TRIBUNAL DECISION, THIS GROUND IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS GROUND IS REJECTED. 137. GROUND NO. 9 IS AS U NDER: 9. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE UP TO 80% I.E. RS.96,89,124/ - ON ACCOUNT OF SALES PROMOTION EXPENSES EVEN THOUGH THE EXPENDITURE HIT BY SECTION 37(2A) OF THE ACT BEING ENTERTAINMENT AND PRESENTATION/GIFT EXPENSES. 138. LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). 139. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT IDE NTICAL ISSUE WAS RAISED BY REVENUE AS PER GROUND NO. 4(A) TO 4(D) IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 91 - 92 IN I.T.A. NO. 537 AND THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE AS PER PARA 12 TO 26 OF THE TRIBUNAL DECISION IN ASSESS MENT YEAR 91 - 92. SINCE LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY DIFFERENCE IN FACTS IN THE PRESENT YEAR, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW IN THIS YEAR. ACCORDINGLY, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE EARLIER TRIBUNAL DECISION, THIS GRO UND IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS GROUND IS REJECTED. 140. GROUND NO. 10 IS AS UNDER: 33 ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.40,000/ - ON ACCOUNT OF TRAVELING EXPENS ES IGNORING THE FACT THAT THESE EXPENSES WERE NOT CONNECTED WITH BUSINESS. 141. LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSES SEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 93 - 94 AS PER PARA 251 AND 252 OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER. 142. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE TRIBUNAL DECISION IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 93 - 94. LEARNED DR OF THE REVENUE COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY DIFFERENCE IN FACTS AND THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW IN THE PRESENT YEAR. THIS GROUND IS REJECTED. 143. GROUND NO. 11 IS AS UNDER: 11. ON TH E FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT CORRECT IN ALLOWING THE PROSPECTING EXPENDITURE UNDER SECTION 35E. 144. LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). 145. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS RAISED BY REVENUE AS PER GROUND NO. 2 IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 90 - 91 IN I.T.A. NO. 486 AND THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE AS PER PARA 6 TO 8 OF THE TRIBUNAL DECISION IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 90 - 91. SINCE LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE COULD NOT POIN T OUT ANY DIFFERENCE IN FACTS IN THE PRESENT YEAR, WE DO NOT 34 FIND ANY REASON TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW IN THIS YEAR. ACCORDINGLY, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE EARLIER TRIBUNAL DECISION, THIS GROUND IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS GROUND IS REJECTED . 146. GROUND NO. 12 IS AS UNDER: 12. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT CORRECT IN ALLOWING EQUITY ISSUE EXPENSES U/S 35D. 147. LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A. R. OF THE AS SESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). 148. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS RAISED BY REVENUE AS PER GROUND NO. 4 IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 90 - 91 IN I.T.A. NO. 486 AND THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN F AVOUR OF THE REVENUE AND AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AS PER PARA 12 TO 14 OF THE TRIBUNAL DECISION IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 90 - 91. SINCE LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY DIFFERENCE IN FACTS IN THE PRESENT YEAR, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO TAKE A C ONTRARY VIEW IN THIS YEAR. ACCORDINGLY, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE EARLIER TRIBUNAL DECISION, THIS GROUND IS DECIDED IN AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. THIS GROUND IS ALLOWED. 149. GROUND NO. 13 IS AS UNDER: 13. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING THE RELIEF OF RS.6,80,000/ - ON ACCOUNT OF OFFICE MAINTENANCE EXPENDITURE IGNORING THAT THESE EXPENSES SEEMINGLY OF CAPITAL NATURE. 150. LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF 35 THE ASSESSEE BY THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 93 - 94 AS PER PARA 281 AND 282 OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER. 151. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE TRIBUNAL DECISION IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 93 - 94. LEARNED DR OF THE REVENUE COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY D IFFERENCE IN FACTS AND THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW IN THE PRESENT YEAR. THIS GROUND IS REJECTED. 152. GROUND NO. 14 IS AS UNDER: 14. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING RELIEF OF RS.4,67,286/ - ON ACCOUNT OF EXPENSES ON ARCHITECT AWARD OF THE YEAR IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS NOT IN ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION BUSINESS, AS WELL AS THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO ESTABLISH CLEAR NEXUS OF EXPENDITURE WITH THE BUSIN ESS. 153. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT THIS ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY LEARNED CIT(A) AS PER PARA 32 AVAILABLE ON PAGES 34 AND 35 OF THE ORDER OF CIT(A). WE FIND THAT IT IS NOTED BY CIT(A) THAT THE DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE BY THE ASSE SSING OFFICER WITH THE FINDING THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS NOT IN ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION BUSINESS EXCEPT FOR THE MANUFACTURE OF ONE ITEM I.E. CEMENT AND THEREFORE, IT IS NOT PERCEPTIBLE AS TO HOW THIS ITEM WILL BENEFIT THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ISSU E IN DISPUTE IS REGARDING EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IN RESPECT OF ARCHITECT AWARD OF THE YEAR. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, EVEN IF THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING OF ONLY ONE TIME OF CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS I.E. CEMENT, SUCH AN EXPENSE ON ACCOUNT OF ARCHITECT AWARD, CAN BE VERY MUCH FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES BECAUSE IT WILL HELP THE ASSESSEE COMPANY TO PROMOTE ITS CEMENT BUSINESS. THIS IS ALSO NOTED BY 36 LEARNED CIT(A) THAT THE SIMILAR CLAIM WAS ALLOWED IN EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR I.E. 94 - 95 AND ALSO IN LATER YEAR I.E. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004 - 05. HENCE, WE DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. THIS GROUND IS REJECTED. 154. GROUND NO. 15 IS AS UNDER: 15. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF. RS.70,000/ - ON ACCOUNT OF RECRUITMENT EXPENSES, IGNORING THAT THESE EXPENSES WERE RELATED TO GUEST HOUSE EXPENSES WHICH WERE NOT RELATED TO BUSINESS. 155. LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSES SEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 95 - 96 AS PER PARA 425 OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER. 156. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE TRIBUNAL DECISION IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASS ESSMENT YEAR 95 - 96. LEARNED DR OF THE REVENUE COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY DIFFERENCE IN FACTS AND THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW IN THE PRESENT YEAR. THIS GROUND IS REJECTED. 157. GROUND NO. 16 IS AS UNDER: 16. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF ME CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,34,25,433/ - ON ACCOUNT OF LIABILITIES OF MORE THAN 3 YEARS, EVEN THOUGH THE DEBT WERE EFFECTED WITH CESSATION OF LIABILITIES WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 41(1) O F THE I. T. ACT, 1961. 37 158. LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). 159. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT LEARNED CIT(A) HAS DELETED THIS ADDITION BY FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE APEX COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SUGAULI SUGAR WORKS (P) LTD. 236 ITR 160. THIS IS NOT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT THE LIABILITY IS NOT APPEARING IN THE BALANCE SHEET. THE ONLY OBJECTI ON OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS THAT THE LIABILITY IS MORE THAN THREE YEARS OLD. HENCE, UNDER THESE FACTS, THE DISPUTED ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE APEX COURT FOLLOWED BY LEARNED CIT(A). WE, THEREFORE, DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). THIS GROUND IS REJECTED. 161. GROUND NO. 17 IS AS UNDER: 17. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING THE RELIEF OF RS.1,59,192/ - ON ACCOUNT OF TAXI HIRE CHARGES EX PENSES, EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT ESTABLISH THAT THESE EXPENSES WERE INCURRED FOR THE BUSINESS PURPOSES IN SPITE OF SPECIFIC OPPORTUNITY GIVEN. 162. LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 95 - 96 AS PER PARA 405 OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER. 163. WE HAVE C ONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE TRIBUNAL DECISION IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 95 - 96. LEARNED DR OF THE REVENUE COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY DIFFERENCE IN FACTS AND T HEREFORE, WE DO 38 NOT FIND ANY REASON TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW IN THE PRESENT YEAR. THIS GROUND IS REJECTED. 164. GROUND NO. 18(A) IS AS UNDER: 18(A) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF R S.10,050/ - ON ACCOUNT OF DEPRECIATION RELATABLE TO SCRAP DISCARDED MACHINERY IGNORING THE FACT THAT DURING PRECEDING YEAR THE SCRAP VALUE OF REPAIR OF PLANT & MACHINERY WAS ESTIMATED AT 10% OF MATERIAL COST OF REPAIRS AND WDV WAS REDUCED. 165. LEARNED D . R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). 166. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT IT IS NOTED BY LEARNED CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE DISALLOWANCE OUT OF DEPRECIATION ON THE BASIS THAT OUT OF REPAIRS TO PLANT & MACHINERY, 10% OF MATERIAL COST OF SPARES IS TO BE CONSID ERED AS SCRAP VALUE AND THE SAME SHOULD BE REDUCED FROM THE WDV OF THE PLANT & MACHINERY AND CONSEQUENTLY, THE DEPRECIATION IS TO BE REDUCED TO THAT EXTENT. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, UNLESS THIS IS BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE REVENUE THAT THERE IS ANY SCRAP VALUE REALIZED OR IS REALIZABLE ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF SCRAP, NO SUCH ADJUSTMENT CAN BE MADE IN WDV BECAUSE AS PER EXPLANATION 2 BELOW CLAUSE (II) OF SECTION 32(1), WRITTEN DOWN VALUE OF THE BLOCK OF ASSETS SHALL HAVE THE SAME MEANING AS IN CLAUSE (C) OF S UB SECTION (6) OF SECTION 43 OF THE ACT. AS PER CLAUSE (C) OF SUB SECTION (6) OF SECTION 43, DEDUCTION HAS TO BE MADE FROM OPENING WDV ON ACCOUNT OF SUMS PAYABLE IN RESPECT OF ANY ASSET FALLING WITHIN THAT BLOCK WHICH IS SOLD OR DISCARDED OR DEMOLISHED OR DISTURBED, DURING THAT PREVIOUS YEAR TOGETHER WITH THE AMOUNT OF SCRAP VALUE, IF ANY, SUBJECT TO THIS THAT SUCH DEDUCTION IS NOT 39 EXCEEDING THE WDV. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE SCRAP VALUE SOUGHT TO BE REDUCED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT ON ACCOUNT OF AS SETS BEING SOLD OR DISCARDED OR DEMOLISHED OR DISTURBED. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSET IS PUT TO REPAIR AND THE MATERIAL USED FOR REPAIR OF PLANT & MACHINERY CANNOT BE SAID TO BE THE SCRAP VALUE ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OR DISCARDING OR DEMOLISHING OR DISTURBI NG OF THE ASSET IN QUESTION. HENCE, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THERE IS NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND THEREFORE, WE DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. GROUND NO. 18(A) IS REJECTED. 167. GROUND NO. 18(B) IS AS UNDER: 19(B) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING 100% DEPRECIATION ON MACHINERY FOR ENERGY SAVING WHILE SUCH MACHINERY WAS NOT DIRECTLY COVERED BY THIS TYPE OF PLANT & MACHINERY AS MENTIONED IN I.T. RULES BE CALCULATED TREATING IT AS PLANTS & MACHINERY INSTEAD OF PART OF ROADS. 168. LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). 169. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE R IVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS RAISED BY REVENUE AS PER GROUND NO. 30(C) IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 91 - 92 IN I.T.A. NO. 537 AND THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE AS PER PARA 121 TO 123 OF T HE TRIBUNAL DECISION IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 91 - 92. SINCE LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY DIFFERENCE IN FACTS IN THE PRESENT YEAR, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW IN THIS YEAR. ACCORDINGLY, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE EARLI ER TRIBUNAL DECISION, THIS GROUND IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS GROUND IS REJECTED. 40 170. GROUND NO. 18(C) IS AS UNDER: 18(C) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.29 ,369/ - ON ACCOUNT OF DEPRECIATION ON REPAIRS TO PLANT & MACHINERY TREATED AS CAPITAL IN EARLIER YEARS IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE DISPUTED THE ISSUE OF REPAIRS TO PLANT & MACHINERY TREATED AS CAPITAL IN EARLIER YEARS BEFORE VARIOUS COURTS. 171. LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). 172. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT IT IS NOTED BY LEARNED CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE DISALLOWANCE OUT OF DEPRECIATION ON THE BASIS THAT OUT OF REPAIRS TO PLANT & MACHINERY, 10% OF MATERIAL COST OF SPARES IS TO BE CONSID ERED AS SCRAP VALUE AND THE SAME SHOULD BE REDUCED FROM THE WDV OF THE PLANT & MACHINERY AND CONSEQUENTLY, THE DEPRECIATION IS TO BE REDUCED TO THAT EXTENT. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, UNLESS THIS IS BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE REVENUE THAT THERE IS ANY SCRAP VALUE REALIZED OR IS REALIZABLE ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF SCRAP, NO SUCH ADJUSTMENT CAN BE MADE IN WDV BECAUSE AS PER EXPLANATION 2 BELOW CLAUSE (II) OF SECTION 32(1), WRITTEN DOWN VALUE OF THE BLOCK OF ASSETS SHALL HAVE THE SAME MEANING AS IN CLAUSE (C) OF S UB SECTION (6) OF SECTION 43 OF THE ACT. AS PER CLAUSE (C) OF SUB SECTION (6) OF SECTION 43, DEDUCTION HAS TO BE MADE FROM OPENING WDV ON ACCOUNT OF SUMS PAYABLE IN RESPECT OF ANY ASSET FALLING WITHIN THAT BLOCK WHICH IS SOLD OR DISCARDED OR DEMOLISHED OR DISTURBED, DURING THAT PREVIOUS YEAR TOGETHER WITH THE AMOUNT OF SCRAP VALUE, IF ANY, SUBJECT TO THIS THAT SUCH DEDUCTION IS NOT EXCEEDING THE WDV. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE SCRAP VALUE SOUGHT TO BE REDUCED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT ON ACCOUNT OF AS SETS BEING SOLD OR DISCARDED OR DEMOLISHED OR DISTURBED. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSET IS PUT 41 TO REPAIR AND THE MATERIAL USED FOR REPAIR OF PLANT & MACHINERY CANNOT BE SAID TO BE THE SCRAP VALUE ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OR DISCARDING OR DEMOLISHING OR DISTURBI NG OF THE ASSET IN QUESTION. HENCE, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THERE IS NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND THEREFORE, WE DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. GROUND NO. 18(C) IS REJECTED. 173. GROUND NO. 19 IS AS UNDER: 19. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.79,19,257/ - ON ACCOUNT OF REPAIRS TO PLANT & MACHINERY EXPENSES EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PROVE THAT ALL ITEMS CHARGED UNDE R THIS HEAD WERE ROUTED THROUGH STORES IN SPITE OF SPECIFIC OPPORTUNITY GIVEN. 174. LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). 175. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RI VAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS RAISED BY REVENUE AS PER GROUND NO. 10 IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 91 - 92 IN I.T.A. NO. 537 AND THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE AS PER PARA 42 TO 44 OF THE TRI BUNAL DECISION IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 91 - 92. SINCE LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY DIFFERENCE IN FACTS IN THE PRESENT YEAR, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW IN THIS YEAR. ACCORDINGLY, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE EARLIER TRI BUNAL DECISION, THIS GROUND IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS GROUND IS REJECTED. 176. GROUND NO. 20 IS AS UNDER: 20. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1,12,01,522/ - ON ACCOUNT OF REPAIRS TO BUILDING EXPENSES, EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PROVE THAT 42 ALL ITEMS CHARGED UNDER THIS HEAD WERE RO UTED THROUGH STORES IN SPITE OF SPECIFIC OPPORTUNITY GIVEN. 177. LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). 178. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS RAISED BY REVENUE AS PER GROUND NO. 11 IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 91 - 92 IN I.T.A. NO. 537 AND THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE AS PER PARA 45 TO 47 OF THE TRIBUNAL DECISION IN AS SESSMENT YEAR 91 - 92. SINCE LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY DIFFERENCE IN FACTS IN THE PRESENT YEAR, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW IN THIS YEAR. ACCORDINGLY, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE EARLIER TRIBUNAL DECISION, THIS GROUND IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS GROUND IS REJECTED. 179. GROUND NO. 21 IS AS UNDER: 21. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.41,000/ - ON ACCOUNT OF SPORTS PROMOTION EXPENSES, EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PROVE THAT THESE EXPENSES WERE INCURRED FOR THE BUSINESS PURPOSES IN SPITE OF SPECIFIC OPPORTUNITY GIVEN. 180. LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A. R. OF TH E ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). 181. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT IT IS NOTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON PAGE NO. 13 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED DETAILS AS PER ANNEXURE 104 AND CLA IMED RS.69,012/ - UNDER THIS HEAD I.E. SPORTS PROMOTION EXPENSES OUT OF WHICH 43 THE AMOUNT OF RS.1,000/ - IS RELATED TO FINANCIAL AID AS PER VOUCHER NO. CV3004 AND NOT QUALIFIED FOR DEDUCTION. ON THIS BASIS, HE HAD MADE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1,000/ - OUT OF EXPEN SES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE OF RS.69,012/ - UNDER THE HEAD SPORTS PROMOTION EXPENSES. FROM THE NARRATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE EXACT OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER DOES NOT COME OUT BECAUSE EVEN IF THE AMOUNT IS INCURRED IN RELATION TO FI NANCIAL AID TO PROMOTE SPORTS FOR THE ASSESSEES EMPLOYEES, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE SAME IS NOT ALLOWABLE. THE CIT(A) HAS DELETED THIS DISALLOWANCE ON THE BASIS THAT IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 92 - 93 AND 96 - 97 TO 98 - 99 ALSO, SIMILAR DISALLOWANCES WERE MADE, WHI CH WERE DELETED BY LEARNED CIT(A) AND NOTHING HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD BY REVENUE BEFORE US THAT THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN THESE YEARS HAS BEEN CHALLENGED BY THE REVENUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND WERE REVERSED. MOREOVER, LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE COULD NOT POINT OUT THE EXACT OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR WHICH DISALLOWANCE HAS BEEN MADE BY HIM AND CONSIDERING ALL THESE FACTS AND CONSIDERING THAT THE AMOUNT IS A PALTRY SUM OF RS.1,000/ - , WE DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. GROUND NO. 21 IS REJECTED. 182. GROUND NO. 22 IS AS UNDER: 22. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.11,73,496/ - ON ACCOUNT OF TELEPHONE EXPENSES, IGNORING THAT THE ASSESSEE COU LD NOT PROVE THAT ALL EXPENSES UNDER THIS HEAD WERE INCURRED WHOLLY & EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE BUSINESS PURPOSES IN SPITE OF SPECIFIC OPPORTUNITY GIVEN. 183. LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSEE SU PPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). 44 184. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT THIS ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF SAYAJI IRON AND ENGG. CO. VS. CIT [200 2] 253 ITR 749 (GUJ) WHERE IT IS HELD THAT EVEN IF THERE IS PERSONAL USE OF TELEPHONE AND VEHICLES ETC. BY THE DIRECTORS / EMPLOYEES OF THE COMPANY, THE SAME CAN BE INCLUDED IN THE PERQUISITES VALUE OF THE CONCERNED DIRECTOR/ EMPLOYEE BUT THE DISALLOWANCE CANNOT BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. WE DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A). THIS GROUND IS REJECTED. 184. GROUND NO. 23 IS AS UNDER: 23. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.66,197/ - ON ACCOUNT OF REPAIRS TO OTHER ASSETS EXPENSES, IGNORING THE FACT THAT THESE EXPENSES WERE NOT PROPERLY VOUCHED. 185. LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPO RTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 93 - 94 AS PER PARA 279 TO 280 OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER. 186. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE TRIBUNAL DECISION IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 93 - 94. LEARNED DR OF THE REVENUE COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY DIFFERENCE IN FACTS AND THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW IN THE PRESENT YEAR. THIS GROUND IS REJECTED. 187. GROUND NO. 24 IS AS UNDER: 24. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING RELIEF OF RS.16,79,85 2/ - ON 45 ACCOUNT OF GUEST HOUSE EXPENSES WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PROVE THE CLEAR NEXUS OF THE EXPENDITURE WITH THE BUSINESS ACTIVITY. 188. LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). 189. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS RAISED BY REVENUE AS PER GROUND NO. 28 IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 91 - 92 IN I.T.A. NO. 537 AND THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE AS PER PARA 106 TO 114 OF THE TRIBUNAL DECISION IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 91 - 92. SINCE LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY DIFFERENCE IN FACTS IN THE PRESENT YEAR, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW IN THIS YEAR. ACCORDINGLY, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE EARLIER TRIBUNAL DECISION, THIS GROUND IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS GROUND IS REJ ECTED. 190. GROUND NO. 25 IS AS UNDER: 25. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN RESTRICTING THE DISALLOWANCE UP TO THE EXTENT 50% ON ACCOUNT OF EXPENSES ON KAMLA RETREAT - IGNORING THAT THESE EXPENSES ARE HIT BY SECTION 37(4) AND 37(5) OF THE ACT. 191. LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). 192. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS RAISED BY REVENUE AS PER GROUND NO. 10(A) IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 90 - 91 IN I.T.A. NO. 486 AND THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE AS PER PARA 37 TO 39 OF THE 46 TRIBUNAL DECISION IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 90 - 91. SINCE LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY DIFFERENCE IN FACTS IN THE PRESENT YEAR, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW IN THIS YEAR. ACCORDINGLY, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE EARLIER TRIBUNAL DECISION, THIS GROUND IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS GROUND IS REJECTED. 193. GROUND NO. 26 IS AS UNDER: 26. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING RELIEF OF RS.6,36,960/ - ON ACCOUNT OF GUEST HOUSE MAINTAINED IN KAMLA CASTLE AT MUSSORIE EVEN THOUGH NO DETAILS OF THE EXPENDITURE WERE PRODUCED BEFORE HIM AND AS SUCH, THE RELIEF GIVEN IS WITHOUT BASIS. 194. LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEAR NED CIT(A). 195. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS RAISED BY REVENUE AS PER GROUND NO. 6 IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 91 - 92 IN I.T.A. NO. 537 AND THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE AS PER PARA 30 TO 32 OF THE TRIBUNAL DECISION IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 91 - 92. SINCE LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY DIFFERENCE IN FACTS IN THE PRESENT YEAR, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW IN THIS YEAR. ACCORDIN GLY, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE EARLIER TRIBUNAL DECISION, THIS GROUND IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS GROUND IS REJECTED. 196. GROUND NO. 27 IS AS UNDER: 27. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING RELIEF OF RS.3,60,060/ - ON ACCOUNT OF EXPENSES ON QUEST HOUSE TAKEN ON RENT 47 IGNORING THAT THE EXPENDITURE HIT BY PROVISIONS CONTAINED U/S 37(4) OF THE I.T. ACT. 197. L EARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESS EES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 94 - 95 AS PER PARA 362 OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER. 198. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE TRIBUNAL DECISION IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSE SSMENT YEAR 94 - 95. LEARNED DR OF THE REVENUE COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY DIFFERENCE IN FACTS AND THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW IN THE PRESENT YEAR. THIS GROUND IS REJECTED. 199. GROUND NO. 28 IS AS UNDER: 28. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING RELIEF OF RS.3,61,238/ - ON ACCOUNT OF MESS EXPENSES IGNORING THE FACT THAT THESE EXPENSES WERE NOT CONNECTED WITH BUSINESS. 200 . LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSME NT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). 201. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS RAISED BY REVENUE AS PER GROUND NO. 12 IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 91 - 92 IN I.T.A. NO. 537 AND T HE ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE AS PER PARA 48 TO 50 OF THE TRIBUNAL DECISION IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 91 - 92. SINCE LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY DIFFERENCE IN FACTS IN THE PRESENT YEA R, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW IN THIS YEAR. ACCORDINGLY, 48 RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE EARLIER TRIBUNAL DECISION, THIS GROUND IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS GROUND IS REJECTED. 202. GROUND NO. 29 IS AS UNDER: 29. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE OTHER CONSULTANCY CHARGES OF RS.3,442/ - AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. 203. LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSE E SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). 204. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS RAISED BY REVENUE AS PER GROUND NO. 19 IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 91 - 92 IN I.T.A. NO. 537 AND THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN FAVOU R OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE AS PER PARA 72 TO 74 OF THE TRIBUNAL DECISION IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 91 - 92. SINCE LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY DIFFERENCE IN FACTS IN THE PRESENT YEAR, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO TAKE A CONTRA RY VIEW IN THIS YEAR. ACCORDINGLY, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE EARLIER TRIBUNAL DECISION, THIS GROUND IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS GROUND IS REJECTED. 204 (A) IN THE RESULT, THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 205. NOW WE TAKE THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE I.E. I.T.A. NO.716/LKW/2010 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001 - 02. 206. GROUND NO. 1 IS AS UNDER: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE GUARANTEE CHARGES OF RS.1,28,500/ - AS REVEN UE EXPENDITURE. 49 207. LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). 208. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS RAISED BY REVENUE AS PER GROUND NO. 17 IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 91 - 92 IN I.T.A. NO. 537 AND THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE AS PER PARA 63 TO 65 OF THE TRIBUNAL DECISION IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 91 - 92. SINCE LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY DIFFERENCE IN FACTS IN THE PRESENT YEAR, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW IN THIS YEAR. ACCORDINGLY, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE EARLIER TRIBUNAL DECISION, THIS GROUND IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSES SEE. THIS GROUND IS REJECTED. 209. GROUND NO. 2 IS AS UNDER: 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE GARDENING CHARGES OF RS.2,42,266/ - EVEN THOUGH THESE EXPENSES WERE NOT PROPERLY VOUCHED. 210. LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). 211. L EARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE O RDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 93 - 94 AS PER PARA 241 & 242 OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER. 212. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE TRIBUNAL DECISION IN 50 ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 93 - 94. LEARNED DR OF THE REVENUE COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY DIFFERENCE IN FACTS AND THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW IN THE PRESENT YEAR. THIS GROUND IS REJECTED. 213. GROUND NO. 3 IS AS UNDER: 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.6,59,330/ - ON ACCOUNT OF ARTICLES INTENDED FOR PRESENTATION IGNORING THE FACT THAT THESE EXPENSES WERE NOT CONNECTED WITH BUSINESS. 214. LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). 215. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS RAISED BY REVENUE AS PER GROUND NO. 29 IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 91 - 92 IN I.T.A. NO. 537 AND THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE AS PER PARA 115 TO 117 OF THE TRIBUNAL DECISION IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 91 - 92. SINCE LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY DIFFERENCE IN FACTS IN THE PRESENT YEAR, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW IN THIS YEAR. ACCORD INGLY, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE EARLIER TRIBUNAL DECISION, THIS GROUND IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS GROUND IS REJECTED. 216. GROUND NO. 4 IS AS UNDER: 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING RELIEF OF RS.62,61,542/ - ON ACCOUNT OF TRAVELING EXPENSES WERE NOT INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES AND HIT BY PROVISIONS OF SECTION 37(1) OF THE I. T. ACT. 51 217. LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WH EREAS LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). 218. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS RAISED BY REVENUE AS PER GROUND NO. 9 IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 91 - 92 IN I.T.A. NO. 537 AND THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE AS PER PARA 39 TO 41 OF THE TRIBUNAL DECISION IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 91 - 92. SINCE LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY DIFFERENCE IN FACTS IN THE PRESENT YEAR, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW IN THIS YEAR. ACCORDINGLY, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE EARLIER TRIBUNAL DECISION, THIS GROUND IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS GROUND IS REJECTED. 219. GROUND NO. 5 IS AS UNDER: 5. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING RELIEF OF RS.6,76,524/ - BEING THE DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF PROPORTIONATE INTEREST ON THE INTEREST FREE LOANS TO M/S J. K. SATOH AGRICULTURAL MACHINES LTD., WHILE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ESTABLISHED THAT THE ADVANCES HAD BEEN MADE TO THE SUBSIDIARY COMPANY OUT OF BANK OVERDRAFT. 220. LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). 221. WE HAVE CON SIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS RAISED BY REVENUE AS PER GROUND NO. 2 IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 91 - 92 IN I.T.A. NO. 537 AND THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE AS PER PARA 5 TO 7 OF THE TRIBUNAL DECISION IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 91 - 92. SINCE LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY DIFFERENCE IN FACTS IN THE PRESENT YEAR, WE DO NOT 52 FIND ANY REASON TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW IN THIS YEAR. ACCORDINGLY, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE EARLIER TRIBUNAL DECISION, THIS GROUND IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS GROUND IS REJECTED. 222. GROUND NO. 6 IS AS UNDER: 6. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.28,313/ - ON ACCOUNT OF CLUB EXPENSES IGNORING THE FACT THAT THESE EXPENSES WERE NOT CONNECTED WITH BUSINESS. 223. LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). 224. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS RAISED BY REVENUE AS PER GROUND NO. 26 IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 91 - 92 IN I.T.A. NO. 537 AND THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE AS PER PARA 100 TO 102 OF THE TRIBUNAL DECISION IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 91 - 92. SINCE LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY DIFFERENCE IN FACTS IN THE PRESENT YEAR, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW IN THIS YEAR. ACCORDINGLY, RESP ECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE EARLIER TRIBUNAL DECISION, THIS GROUND IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS GROUND IS REJECTED. 225. GROUND NO. 7 IS AS UNDER: 7. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT CORRECT IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.46,47,049/ - UNDER THE HEAD 'GENERAL CHARGES' FOR WHICH NO DETAILS WERE FILED. 226. LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). 53 227. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS RAISED BY REVENUE AS PER GROUND NO. 8 IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 91 - 92 IN I.T.A. NO. 537 AND THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN PARTLY IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND PARTLY AGAINST THE A SSESSEE AS PER PARA 36 TO 38 OF THE TRIBUNAL DECISION IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 91 - 92. SINCE LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY DIFFERENCE IN FACTS IN THE PRESENT YEAR, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW IN THIS YEAR. ACCORDINGLY, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE EARLIER TRIBUNAL DECISION, THIS GROUND IS DECIDED IN THE SAME MANNER I.E. PARTLY IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND PARTLY AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. THE A.O. SHOULD ALLOW PART RELIEF AS PER DETAILED TRIBUNAL ORDER IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 91 - 9 2. THIS GROUND IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 228. GROUND NO. 8 IS AS UNDER: 8. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.80,69,962/ - ON ACCOUNT OF EMPLOYEES WELFARE EXPENSES EVEN THOUGH NO DETAILS OF EXPENSES WERE FILED AS WELL AS THESE EXPENSES WERE NOT MEANT WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES. 229. LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CI T(A). 230. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS RAISED BY REVENUE AS PER GROUND NO. 24(A) TO 24(D) IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 91 - 92 IN I.T.A. NO. 537 AND THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND A GAINST THE REVENUE AS PER PARA 87 TO 95 OF THE TRIBUNAL DECISION IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 91 - 92. SINCE LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY DIFFERENCE IN FACTS IN THE PRESENT YEAR, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW IN THIS 54 YEAR. A CCORDINGLY, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE EARLIER TRIBUNAL DECISION, THIS GROUND IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS GROUND IS REJECTED. 231. GROUND NO. 9 IS AS UNDER: 9. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELET ING THE DISALLOWANCE UP TO 80% I.E. RS.96,89,124/ - ON ACCOUNT OF SALES PROMOTION EXPENSES EVEN THOUGH THE EXPENDITURE HIT BY SECTION 37(2A) OF THE ACT BEING ENTERTAINMENT AND PRESENTATION/GIFT EXPENSES. 232. LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASS ESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). 233. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS RAISED BY REVENUE AS PER GROUND NO. 4(A) TO 4(D) IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 91 - 92 IN I.T.A . NO. 537 AND THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE AS PER PARA 12 TO 26 OF THE TRIBUNAL DECISION IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 91 - 92. SINCE LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY DIFFERENCE IN FACTS IN THE PRESENT YEAR, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW IN THIS YEAR. ACCORDINGLY, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE EARLIER TRIBUNAL DECISION, THIS GROUND IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS GROUND IS REJECTED. 234. GROUND NO. 10 IS AS UNDER: 10. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.40,000/ - ON ACCOUNT OF TRAVELING EXPENSES IGNORING THE FACT THAT THESE EXPENSES WERE NOT CONNECTED WITH BUSINESS . 235. L EARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED 55 CIT(A). HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 93 - 94 AS PER PARA 251 & 252 OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER. 236. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMIS SIONS. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE TRIBUNAL DECISION IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 93 - 94. LEARNED DR OF THE REVENUE COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY DIFFERENCE IN FACTS AND THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND A NY REASON TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW IN THE PRESENT YEAR. THIS GROUND IS REJECTED. 237. GROUND NO. 11 IS AS UNDER: 11. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT CORRECT IN ALLOWING THE PROSPECTING EXPENDITURE UNDER SECTION 3 5E. 238. LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). 239. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS RAISED BY REVENUE AS PER GROUND NO. 2 IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 90 - 91 IN I.T.A. NO. 486 AND THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE AS PER PARA 6 TO 8 OF THE TRIBUNAL DECISION IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 90 - 91. SINCE LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE COU LD NOT POINT OUT ANY DIFFERENCE IN FACTS IN THE PRESENT YEAR, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW IN THIS YEAR. ACCORDINGLY, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE EARLIER TRIBUNAL DECISION, THIS GROUND IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS GROUND IS REJECTED. 240. GROUND NO. 12 IS AS UNDER: 56 12. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT CORRECT IN ALLOWING EQUITY ISSUE EXPENSES U/S 35D. 241. LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). 242. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS RAISED BY REVENUE AS PER GROUND NO. 4 IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 90 - 91 IN I.T.A. NO. 486 AND THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AND IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE AS PER PARA 12TO 14 OF THE TRIBUNAL DECISION IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 90 - 91. SINCE LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PO INT OUT ANY DIFFERENCE IN FACTS IN THE PRESENT YEAR, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW IN THIS YEAR. ACCORDINGLY, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE EARLIER TRIBUNAL DECISION, THIS GROUND IS DECIDED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AND IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE . THIS GROUND IS ALLOWED. 243. GROUND NO. 13 IS AS UNDER: 13. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING THE RELIEF OF RS.6,80,000/ - ON ACCOUNT OF OFFICE MAINTENANCE EXPENDITURE IGNORING THAT THESE EXPENSES SEEMINGLY OF CAPITAL NATURE. 244. L EARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE B Y THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 93 - 94 AS PER PARA 281 & 282 OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER. 245. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE TRIBUN AL DECISION IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 93 - 94. LEARNED DR OF THE 57 REVENUE COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY DIFFERENCE IN FACTS AND THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW IN THE PRESENT YEAR. THIS GROUND IS REJECTED. 246. GROUN D NO. 14 IS AS UNDER: 14. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING RELIEF OF RS.4,67,286/ - ON ACCOUNT OF EXPENSES ON ARCHITECT AWARD OF THE YEAR IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS NOT IN ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION BUSINESS, AS WELL AS THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO ESTABLISH CLEAR NEXUS OF EXPENDITURE WITH THE BUSINESS. 247. LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A ). 248. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT THIS ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY LEARNED CIT(A) AS PER PARA 32 AVAILABLE ON PAGES 34 AND 35 OF THE ORDER OF CIT(A). WE FIND THAT IT IS NOTED BY CIT(A) THAT THE DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER WITH THE FINDING THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS NOT IN ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION BUSINESS EXCEPT FOR THE MANUFACTURE OF ONE ITEM I.E. CEMENT AND THEREFORE, IT IS NOT PERCEPTIBLE AS TO HOW THIS ITEM WILL BENEFIT THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ISSUE I N DISPUTE IS REGARDING EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IN RESPECT OF ARCHITECT AWARD OF THE YEAR. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, EVEN IF THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING OF ONLY ONE TIME OF CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS I.E. CEMENT, SUCH AN EXPENSE ON ACCOUNT OF ARCHITECT AWARD, CAN BE VERY MUCH FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES BECAUSE IT WILL HELP THE ASSESSEE COMPANY TO PROMOTE ITS CEMENT BUSINESS. THIS IS ALSO NOTED BY LEARNED CIT(A) THAT THE SIMILAR CLAIM WAS ALLOWED IN EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR I.E . 94 - 95 AND ALSO IN LATER YEAR I.E. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004 - 05. HENCE, WE 58 DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. THIS GROUND IS REJECTED. 249. GROUND NO. 15 IS AS UNDER: 15. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.70,000/ - ON ACCOUNT OF RECRUITMENT EXPENSES, IGNORING THAT THESE EXPENSES WERE RELATED TO GUEST HOUSE EXPENSES WHICH WERE NOT RELATED TO BUSINESS. 250. L EARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSM ENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 95 - 96 AS PER PA RA 425 OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER. 251. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE TRIBUNAL DECISION IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 95 - 96. LEARNED DR OF THE REVENUE COU LD NOT POINT OUT ANY DIFFERENCE IN FACTS AND THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW IN THE PRESENT YEAR. THIS GROUND IS REJECTED. 252. GROUND NO. 16 IS AS UNDER: ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,34,25,433/ - ON ACCOUNT OF LIABILITIES OF MORE THAN 3 YEARS, EVEN THOUGH THE DEBT WERE EFFECTED WITH CESSATION OF LIABILITIES WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 41(1) OF THE I. T. ACT, 1961. 253. LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). 59 254. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT LEARNED CIT(A) HAS DELETED THIS ADDITION BY FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BL E APEX COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SUGAULI SUGAR WORKS (P) LTD. 236 ITR 518. THIS IS NOT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT THE LIABILITY IS NOT APPEARING IN THE BALANCE SHEET. THE ONLY OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS THAT THE LIABILITY IS MORE THAN THREE YEARS OLD. HENCE, UNDER THESE FACTS, THE DISPUTED ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE APEX COURT FOLLOWED BY LEARNED CIT(A). WE, THEREFORE, DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). THIS GROUND IS REJECTED. 255. GROUND NO. 17 IS AS UNDER: 17. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING THE RELIEF OF RS.1,59,192/ - ON ACCOUNT OF TAXI HIRE CHARGES EXPENSES, EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT ESTABLISH THAT THESE EXPENSES WERE INCURRED FOR THE BUSINESS PURPOSES IN SPITE OF SPECIFIC OPPORTUNITY GIVEN. 256. L EARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). HE ALSO SUBMITT ED THAT THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 95 - 96 AS PER PARA 405 OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER. 257. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE TRIBUNAL DECISION IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 95 - 96. LEARNED DR OF THE REVENUE COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY DIFFERENCE IN FACTS AND THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO TAKE A CONTRARY VI EW IN THE PRESENT YEAR. THIS GROUND IS REJECTED. 258. GROUND NO. 18(A) IS AS UNDER: 60 18(A) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.10,050/ - ON ACCOUNT OF DEPRECIATION RELATABLE TO SCRAP DISCARDED MACHINERY IGNORING THE FACT THAT DURING PRECEDING YEAR THE SCRAP VALUE OF REPAIR OF PLANT & MACHINERY WAS ESTIMATED AT 10% OF MATERIAL COST OF REPAIRS AND WDV WAS REDUCED. 259. LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREA S LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). 260. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT IT IS NOTED BY LEARNED CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE DISALLOWANCE OUT OF DEPRECIATION ON THE BASIS THAT OUT O F REPAIRS TO PLANT & MACHINERY, 10% OF MATERIAL COST OF SPARES IS TO BE CONSIDERED AS SCRAP VALUE AND THE SAME SHOULD BE REDUCED FROM THE WDV OF THE PLANT & MACHINERY AND CONSEQUENTLY, THE DEPRECIATION IS TO BE REDUCED TO THAT EXTENT. IN OUR CONSIDERED OP INION, UNLESS THIS IS BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE REVENUE THAT THERE IS ANY SCRAP VALUE REALIZED OR IS REALIZABLE ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF SCRAP, NO SUCH ADJUSTMENT CAN BE MADE IN WDV BECAUSE AS PER EXPLANATION 2 BELOW CLAUSE (II) OF SECTION 32(1), WRITTEN DOWN VALUE OF THE BLOCK OF ASSETS SHALL HAVE THE SAME MEANING AS IN CLAUSE (C) OF SUB SECTION (6) OF SECTION 43 OF THE ACT. AS PER CLAUSE (C) OF SUB SECTION (6) OF SECTION 43, DEDUCTION HAS TO BE MADE FROM OPENING WDV ON ACCOUNT OF SUMS PAYABLE IN RESPECT OF A NY ASSET FALLING WITHIN THAT BLOCK WHICH IS SOLD OR DISCARDED OR DEMOLISHED OR DISTURBED, DURING THAT PREVIOUS YEAR TOGETHER WITH THE AMOUNT OF SCRAP VALUE, IF ANY, SUBJECT TO THIS THAT SUCH DEDUCTION IS NOT EXCEEDING THE WDV. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE SCR AP VALUE SOUGHT TO BE REDUCED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT ON ACCOUNT OF ASSETS BEING SOLD OR DISCARDED OR DEMOLISHED OR DISTURBED. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSET IS PUT TO REPAIR AND THE MATERIAL USED FOR REPAIR OF PLANT & MACHINERY CANNOT BE 61 SAID TO BE THE SCRAP VALUE ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OR DISCARDING OR DEMOLISHING OR DISTURBING OF THE ASSET IN QUESTION. HENCE, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THERE IS NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND THEREFORE, WE DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. GROUND NO. 18(A) IS REJECTED. 261. GROUND NO. 18(B) IS AS UNDER: 18(B) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING 100% DEPRECIATION ON MACHINERY FOR ENERGY SAVING WHILE SUCH MACHINERY WAS NOT DIRECTLY COVERED BY THIS TYPE OF PLANT & MACHINERY AS MENTIONED IN I. T. RULES BE CALCULATED TREATING IT AS PLANT & MACHINERY INSTEAD OF PART OF ROADS. 262. LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). 263. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS RAISED BY REVENUE AS PER GROUND NO. 30(C) IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 91 - 92 IN I.T.A. NO. 537 AND THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNA L IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE AS PER PARA 121 TO 123 OF THE TRIBUNAL DECISION IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 91 - 92. SINCE LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY DIFFERENCE IN FACTS IN THE PRESENT YEAR, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO T AKE A CONTRARY VIEW IN THIS YEAR. ACCORDINGLY, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE EARLIER TRIBUNAL DECISION, THIS GROUND IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS GROUND IS REJECTED. 264. GROUND NO. 18(C) IS AS UNDER: 18(C)ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.29,369/ - ON ACCOUNT OF DEPRECIATION ON REPAIRS TO PLANT & MACHINERY TREATED AS CAPITAL IN EARLIER YEARS IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE DISPUTED THE ISSUE OF 62 REPAIRS TO PLANT & MACHINERY TREATED AS CAPITAL IN EARLIER YEARS BEFORE VARIOUS COURTS. 265. LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEA RNED CIT(A). 266. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT IT IS NOTED BY LEARNED CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE DISALLOWANCE OUT OF DEPRECIATION ON THE BASIS THAT OUT OF REPAIRS TO PLANT & MACHINERY, 10% OF MATERIAL COST OF SP ARES IS TO BE CONSIDERED AS SCRAP VALUE AND THE SAME SHOULD BE REDUCED FROM THE WDV OF THE PLANT & MACHINERY AND CONSEQUENTLY, THE DEPRECIATION IS TO BE REDUCED TO THAT EXTENT. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, UNLESS THIS IS BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE REVENUE THA T THERE IS ANY SCRAP VALUE REALIZED OR IS REALIZABLE ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF SCRAP, NO SUCH ADJUSTMENT CAN BE MADE IN WDV BECAUSE AS PER EXPLANATION 2 BELOW CLAUSE (II) OF SECTION 32(1), WRITTEN DOWN VALUE OF THE BLOCK OF ASSETS SHALL HAVE THE SAME MEANING A S IN CLAUSE (C) OF SUB SECTION (6) OF SECTION 43 OF THE ACT. AS PER CLAUSE (C) OF SUB SECTION (6) OF SECTION 43, DEDUCTION HAS TO BE MADE FROM OPENING WDV ON ACCOUNT OF SUMS PAYABLE IN RESPECT OF ANY ASSET FALLING WITHIN THAT BLOCK WHICH IS SOLD OR DISCAR DED OR DEMOLISHED OR DISTURBED, DURING THAT PREVIOUS YEAR TOGETHER WITH THE AMOUNT OF SCRAP VALUE, IF ANY, SUBJECT TO THIS THAT SUCH DEDUCTION IS NOT EXCEEDING THE WDV. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE SCRAP VALUE SOUGHT TO BE REDUCED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT ON ACCOUNT OF ASSETS BEING SOLD OR DISCARDED OR DEMOLISHED OR DISTURBED. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSET IS PUT TO REPAIR AND THE MATERIAL USED FOR REPAIR OF PLANT & MACHINERY CANNOT BE SAID TO BE THE SCRAP VALUE ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OR DISCARDING OR DEM OLISHING OR DISTURBING OF THE ASSET IN QUESTION. HENCE, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THERE IS NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND THEREFORE, WE 63 DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. GROUND NO. 18(C) IS REJECTED. 267. GROUND NO. 19 IS AS UNDER: 19. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD, CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.79,19,257/ - ON ACCOUNT OF REPAIRS TO PLANT & MACHINERY EXPENSES EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PROVE THAT ALL ITEMS CHARGED UNDER THIS HEAD WERE ROUTED THROUGH STORES IN SPITE OF SPECIFIC OPPORTUNITY GIVEN. 268. LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). 269. WE H AVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS RAISED BY REVENUE AS PER GROUND NO. 10 IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 91 - 92 IN I.T.A. NO. 537 AND THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE AS PER PAR A 42 TO 44 OF THE TRIBUNAL DECISION IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 91 - 92. SINCE LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY DIFFERENCE IN FACTS IN THE PRESENT YEAR, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW IN THIS YEAR. ACCORDINGLY, RESPECTFULLY FOLL OWING THE EARLIER TRIBUNAL DECISION, THIS GROUND IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS GROUND IS REJECTED. 270. GROUND NO. 20 IS AS UNDER: 20. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1,12,01,522/ - ON ACCOUNT OF REPAIRS TO BUILDING EXPENSES, EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PROVE THAT ALL ITEMS CHARGED UNDER THIS HEAD WERE ROUTED THROUGH STORES IN SPITE OF SPECIFIC OPPORTUNITY GIVEN. 64 271. LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTE D THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). 272. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS RAISED BY REVENUE AS PER GROUND NO. 11 IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 91 - 92 IN I.T.A. NO. 537 AND THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE AS PER PARA 45 TO 47 OF THE TRIBUNAL DECISION IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 91 - 92. SINCE LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY DIFFERENCE IN FACTS IN T HE PRESENT YEAR, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW IN THIS YEAR. ACCORDINGLY, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE EARLIER TRIBUNAL DECISION, THIS GROUND IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS GROUND IS REJECTED. 273. GROUND NO. 21 IS AS UNDER: 21. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.41,000/ - ON ACCOUNT OF SPORTS PROMOTION EXPENSES, EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PROVE THAT THESE EXPENSES WERE INCURRED FOR THE BUSINESS PURPOSES IN SPITE OF SPECIFIC OPPORTUNITY GIVEN. 274. LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). 275. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT LEARNED CIT(A) HAS DECIDED THIS ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF DECISION OF HIS PREDECESSOR IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN SEVERAL OTHER YEARS I.E. ASSESSMENT YEAR 92 - 93, 93 - 94 AND 96 - 97 TO 98 - 99. THIS IS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE REVENUE THAT THE ORDER OF CIT(A) WAS REVERSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ANY OF THOSE YEARS. NO DIFFERENCE IN FACTS COULD BE POINTED OUT 65 BY LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE. WE, THEREFORE, DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDE R OF CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. THIS GROUND IS REJECTED. 276. GROUND NO. 22 IS AS UNDER: 22. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.11,73,496/ - ON ACCOUNT OF TELEPHONE EXPENSES, IGNORING THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PROVE THAT ALL EXPENSES UNDER THIS HEAD WERE INCURRED WHOLLY & EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE BUSINESS PURPOSES IN SPITE OF SPECIFIC OPPORTUNITY GIVEN. 277. LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). 278. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT THIS ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF SAYAJI IRON AND E NGG. CO. VS. CIT [2002] 253 ITR 749 (GUJ) WHERE IT IS HELD THAT EVEN IF THERE IS PERSONAL USE OF TELEPHONE AND VEHICLES ETC. BY THE DIRECTORS / EMPLOYEES OF THE COMPANY, THE SAME CAN BE INCLUDED IN THE PERQUISITES VALUE OF THE CONCERNED DIRECTOR/ EMPLOYEE BUT THE DISALLOWANCE CANNOT BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. WE DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A). THIS GROUND IS REJECTED. 279. GROUND NO. 23 IS AS UNDER: 23. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HA S ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.66,197/ - ON ACCOUNT OF REPAIRS TO OTHER ASSETS EXPENSES, IGNORING THE FACT THAT THESE EXPENSES WERE NOT PROPERLY VOUCHED. 280. L EARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED 66 CIT(A). HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 93 - 94 AS PER PARA 279 & 280 OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER . 281. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE TRIBUNAL DECISION IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 93 - 94. LEARNED DR OF THE REVENUE COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY DIFFERE NCE IN FACTS AND THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW IN THE PRESENT YEAR. THIS GROUND IS REJECTED. 282. GROUND NO. 24 IS AS UNDER: 24. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING RELIEF OF RS.16,79,852/ - ON ACCOUNT OF GUEST HOUSE EXPENSES WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PROVE THE CLEAR NEXUS OF THE EXPENDITURE WITH THE BUSINESS ACTIVITY. 283. LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). 284. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS RAISED BY REVENUE AS PER GROUND NO. 28 IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 91 - 92 IN I.T.A. NO. 537 AND THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE AS PER PARA 106 TO 114 OF THE TRIBUNAL DECISION IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 91 - 92. SINCE LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY DIFFERENCE IN FACTS IN THE PRESENT YEAR, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW IN THIS YEAR. ACCORDINGLY, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE EARLIER TRIBUNAL DECISION, THIS GROUND IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS GROUND IS REJ ECTED. 67 285. GROUND NO. 25 IS AS UNDER: 25. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN RESTRICTING THE DISALLOWANCE UP TO THE EXTENT 50% ON ACCOUNT OF EXPENSES ON KAMLA RETREAT IGNORING THAT THESE EXPENSES ARE HIT BY SECTION 37(4) AND 37(5) OF THE ACT. 286. LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). 287. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS RAISED BY REVENUE AS PER GROUND NO. 10(A) IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 90 - 91 IN I.T.A. NO. 486 AND THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE AS PER PARA 37 TO 39 OF THE TRIBUNAL DECISION IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 90 - 91. SINCE LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY DIFFERENCE IN FACTS IN THE PRESENT YEAR, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW IN THIS YEAR. ACCORDINGLY, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE EARLIER TRIBUNAL DECISION, THIS GROUND IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS GROUND IS REJECTED. 288. GROUND NO. 26 IS AS UNDER: 26. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING RELIEF OF RS.6,36,960/ - ON ACCOUNT OF GUEST HOUSE MAINTAINED IN KAMLA CASTLE AT MUSSORIE EVEN THOUGH NO DETAILS OF THE EXPENDITURE WERE PRODUCE BEFORE HIM AND AS SUCH, THE RELIEF GIVEN IS WITHOUT BASIS. 289. LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARN ED CIT(A). 68 290. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS RAISED BY REVENUE AS PER GROUND NO. 6 IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 91 - 92 IN I.T.A. NO. 537 AND THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE AS PER PARA 30 TO 32 OF THE TRIBUNAL DECISION IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 91 - 92. SINCE LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY DIFFERENCE IN FACTS IN THE PRESENT YEAR, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW IN THIS YEAR. ACCORDIN GLY, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE EARLIER TRIBUNAL DECISION, THIS GROUND IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS GROUND IS REJECTED. 291. GROUND NO. 27 IS AS UNDER: 27. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALL OWING RELIEF OF RS.3,60,060/ - ON ACCOUNT OF EXPENSES ON GUEST HOUSE TAKEN ON RENT IGNORING THAT THE EXPENDITURE HIT BY P ROVISIONS CONTAINED U/S 37(4) OF THE I. T. ACT. 292. L EARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 94 - 95 AS PER PARA 362 OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER. 293. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE TRIBUNAL DECISION IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 94 - 95. LEARNED DR OF THE REVENUE COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY DIFFERENCE IN FACTS AND THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW IN THE PRESENT YEAR. THIS GROUND IS REJECTED. 294. GROUND NO. 28 IS AS UNDER: 69 278. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING RELIEF OF RS.3,61,238/ - ON ACCOUNT OF MESS EXPENSES IGNORING THE FACT THAT THESE EXPENSES WERE NOT CONNECTED WITH BUSINESS. 295. LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CI T(A). 296. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS RAISED BY REVENUE AS PER GROUND NO. 12 IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 91 - 92 IN I.T.A. NO. 537 AND THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE R EVENUE AS PER PARA 48 TO 50 OF THE TRIBUNAL DECISION IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 91 - 92. SINCE LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY DIFFERENCE IN FACTS IN THE PRESENT YEAR, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW IN THIS YEAR. ACCORDINGLY, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE EARLIER TRIBUNAL DECISION, THIS GROUND IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS GROUND IS REJECTED. 297. GROUND NO. 29 IS AS UNDER: 29. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD, CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE OTHER CONSULTANCY CHARGES OF RS.3,442/ - AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. 298. LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). 299. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUB MISSIONS. WE FIND THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS RAISED BY REVENUE AS PER GROUND NO. 19 IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 91 - 92 IN I.T.A. NO. 537 AND THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE AS PER PARA 72 TO 74 OF THE TRIBUNAL D ECISION IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 91 - 92. SINCE LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE 70 COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY DIFFERENCE IN FACTS IN THE PRESENT YEAR, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW IN THIS YEAR. ACCORDINGLY, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE EARLIER TRIBUNAL D ECISION, THIS GROUND IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS GROUND IS REJECTED. 299 (A). IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 300. NOW WE TAKE UP THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE I.E. I.T.A. NO.527/LKW/2010 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002 - 03 . 301. GROUND NO. 1 IS AS UNDER: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE GUARANTEE CHARGES OF RS.64,327/ - AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. 302. LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). 303. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS RAISED BY REVENUE AS PER GROUND NO. 17 IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 91 - 92 IN I.T.A. NO. 537 AND THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE AS PER PARA 63 TO 65 OF THE TRIBUNAL DECISION IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 91 - 92. SINCE LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE COULD NOT P OINT OUT ANY DIFFERENCE IN FACTS IN THE PRESENT YEAR, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW IN THIS YEAR. ACCORDINGLY, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE EARLIER TRIBUNAL DECISION, THIS GROUND IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS GROUND IS REJEC TED. 304. GROUND NO. 2 IS AS UNDER: 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE GARDENING CHARGES OF 71 RS.2,69,645/ - EVEN THOUGH THESE EXPENSES WERE NOT PROPERLY VOUCHED. 305. L EARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESS EES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 93 - 94 AS PER PARA 241 AND 242 OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER. 306. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE TRIBUNAL DECISION IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 93 - 94. LEARNED DR OF THE REVENUE COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY DIFFERENCE IN FACTS AND THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW IN THE PRESENT YEAR. THIS GROUND IS REJECTED. 307. GROUND NO. 3 IS AS UNDER: 3. ON THE F ACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.8,44,038/ - ON ACCOUNT OF ARTICLES INTENDED FOR PRESENTATION IGNORING THE FACT THAT THESE EXPENSES WERE NOT CONNECTED WITH BUSINESS. 308. LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). 309. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS RAISED BY REVENUE AS PER GROUND NO. 29 IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 91 - 92 IN I.T.A. NO. 537 AND THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE AS PER PARA 115 TO 117 OF THE TRIBUNAL DECISION IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 91 - 92. SINCE LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY DIFFERENCE IN FACTS IN THE PRESENT YEAR, WE 72 DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW IN THIS YEAR. ACCORDINGLY, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE EARLIER TRIBUNAL DECISION, THIS GROUND IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS GROUND IS REJ ECTED. 310. GROUND NO. 4 IS AS UNDER: 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING RELIEF OF RS.20,57,778/ - ON ACCOUNT OF TRAVELING EXPENSES WERE NOT INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES AND HIT BY PROVISIONS OF SECTION 37(1) OF THE I.T. ACT. 311. LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). 312. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND T HAT IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS RAISED BY REVENUE AS PER GROUND NO. 9 IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 91 - 92 IN I.T.A. NO. 537 AND THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE AS PER PARA 39 TO 41 OF THE TRIBUNAL DECISION IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 91 - 92. SINCE LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY DIFFERENCE IN FACTS IN THE PRESENT YEAR, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW IN THIS YEAR. ACCORDINGLY, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE EARLIER TRIBUNAL DECISION, THIS GROUND IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS GROUND IS REJECTED. 313. GROUND NO. 5 IS AS UNDER: 5. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT CORRECT IN ALLOWING RELIEF OF RS.6,79,717/ - BEING THE DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF PROPORTIONATE INTEREST ON THE INTEREST FREE LOANS TO M/S J. K. SATOH WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ESTABLISHED THAT THE ADVANCES HAD BEEN MADE TO THE SUBSIDIARY COMPANY OUT OF BANK OVERDRAFT. 73 314. LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). 315. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS RAISED BY REVENUE AS PER GROUND NO. 2 IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 91 - 92 IN I.T.A. NO. 537 AND THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE AS PER PARA 5 TO 7 OF THE TRIBUNAL DECISION IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 91 - 92. SINCE LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE COULD NOT POIN T OUT ANY DIFFERENCE IN FACTS IN THE PRESENT YEAR, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW IN THIS YEAR. ACCORDINGLY, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE EARLIER TRIBUNAL DECISION, THIS GROUND IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS GROUND IS REJECTED . 316. GROUND NO. 6 IS AS UNDER: 6. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.38,12,000/ - ON ACCOUNT OF CLOSING STOCK OF SPARE PARTS AND STORES EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PROVE THAT ALL ITEMS CHARGED UNDER THIS HEAD WERE ROUTED THROUGH STORES IN SPITE OF SPECIFIC OPPORTUNITY GIVEN. 317. LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). 318 . WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS RAISED BY REVENUE AS PER GROUND NO. 23 IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 91 - 92 IN I.T.A. NO. 537 AND THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE AS P ER PARA 84 TO 86 OF THE TRIBUNAL DECISION IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 91 - 92. SINCE LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY DIFFERENCE IN FACTS IN THE PRESENT YEAR, WE DO NOT 74 FIND ANY REASON TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW IN THIS YEAR. ACCORDINGLY, RESPECTFULL Y FOLLOWING THE EARLIER TRIBUNAL DECISION, THIS GROUND IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS GROUND IS REJECTED. 319. GROUND NO. 7 IS AS UNDER: 7. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLO WANCE OF RS.56,601/ - ON ACCOUNT OF CLUB EXPENSES IGNORING THE FACT THAT THESE EXPENSES WERE NOT CONNECTED WITH BUSINESS. 320. LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). 321. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS RAISED BY REVENUE AS PER GROUND NO. 26 IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 91 - 92 IN I.T.A. NO. 537 AND THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST TH E REVENUE AS PER PARA 100 TO 102 OF THE TRIBUNAL DECISION IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 91 - 92. SINCE LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY DIFFERENCE IN FACTS IN THE PRESENT YEAR, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW IN THIS YEAR. ACCORDIN GLY, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE EARLIER TRIBUNAL DECISION, THIS GROUND IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS GROUND IS REJECTED. 322. GROUND NO. 8 IS AS UNDER: 8. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT CORRECT IN REDUCING THE DISALLOWANCE FROM RS.49,85,373/ - TO RS.9,97,075/ - UNDER THE HEAD 'GENERAL CHARGES' FOR WHICH NO DETAILS WERE FILED. 323. LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER O F LEARNED CIT(A). 75 324. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS RAISED BY REVENUE AS PER GROUND NO. 8 IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 91 - 92 IN I.T.A. NO. 537 AND THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN PARTLY IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSES SEE AND PARTLY AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AS PER PARA 36 TO 38 OF THE TRIBUNAL DECISION IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 91 - 92. SINCE LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY DIFFERENCE IN FACTS IN THE PRESENT YEAR, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIE W IN THIS YEAR. ACCORDINGLY, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE EARLIER TRIBUNAL DECISION, THIS GROUND IS DECIDED IN THE SAME MANNER I.E. PARTLY IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND PARTLY AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. THE A.O. SHOULD ALLOW PART RELIEF AS PER DETAILED TRIBUNAL O RDER IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 91 - 92. THIS GROUND IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 325. GROUND NO. 9 IS AS UNDER: 9. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN RESTRICTING THE DISALLOWANCE UP TO THE EXTENT OF 20% AND ALLOWING RELIEF 80% I.E. RS.66,16,900/ - ON ACCOUNT OF EMPLOYEES WELFARE EXPENSES EVEN THOUGH NO DETAILS OF EXPENSES WERE FILED AS WELL AS THESE EXPENSES WERE NOT MEANT WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES. 326. LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). 327. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS RAISED BY REVENUE AS PER GROUND NO. 24(A) TO 24(D) IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 91 - 92 IN I.T.A. NO. 537 AND THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE AS PER PARA 87 TO 95 OF THE TRIBUNAL DECISION IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 91 - 92. SINCE LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY DIFFERENCE IN FACTS IN THE 76 P RESENT YEAR, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW IN THIS YEAR. ACCORDINGLY, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE EARLIER TRIBUNAL DECISION, THIS GROUND IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS GROUND IS REJECTED. 328. GROUND NO. 10 IS AS UNDER: 10. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE UP TO 80% I.E. RS.1,88,03,058/ - ON ACCOUNT OF SALES PROMOTION EXPENSES EVEN THOUGH THE EXPENDITURE HIT BY SECTION 37(2A) OF THE ACT BEING ENTERTAINME NT AND PRESENTATION/GIFT EXPENSES. 329. LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). 330. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT IDENTICAL ISSU E WAS RAISED BY REVENUE AS PER GROUND NO. 4(A) TO 4(D) IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 91 - 92 IN I.T.A. NO. 537 AND THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE AS PER PARA 12 TO 26 OF THE TRIBUNAL DECISION IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 9 1 - 92. SINCE LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY DIFFERENCE IN FACTS IN THE PRESENT YEAR, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW IN THIS YEAR. ACCORDINGLY, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE EARLIER TRIBUNAL DECISION, THIS GROUND IS DECI DED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS GROUND IS REJECTED. 331. GROUND NO. 11 IS AS UNDER: 11. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.20,000/ - ON ACCOUNT OF TRAVELING EXPENSES IGNORING THE FACT THAT THESE EXPENSES WERE NOT CONNECTED WITH BUSINESS. 77 332. L EARNED D. R. OF THE RE VENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSE SSMENT YEAR 93 - 94 AS PER PARA 251 AND 252 OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER. 333. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE TRIBUNAL DECISION IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 93 - 94. LEARNED DR OF THE REVENUE COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY DIFFERENCE IN FACTS AND THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW IN THE PRESENT YEAR. THIS GROUND IS REJECTED. 334. GROUND NO. 12 IS AS UNDER: 12. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT CORRECT IN ALLOWING THE PROSPECTING EXPENDITURE UNDER SECTION 35E. 335. LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). 336. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS RAISED BY REVENUE AS PER GROUND NO. 2 IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 90 - 91 IN I.T.A. NO. 486 AND THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSE SSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE AS PER PARA 6 TO 8 OF THE TRIBUNAL DECISION IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 90 - 91. SINCE LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY DIFFERENCE IN FACTS IN THE PRESENT YEAR, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW IN THIS YEAR. ACCORDINGLY, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE EARLIER TRIBUNAL DECISION, THIS GROUND IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS GROUND IS REJECTED. 78 337. GROUND NO. 13 IS AS UNDER: 13. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1,000/ - ON ACCOUNT OF EQUITY ISSUE EXPENSES EVEN THOUGH NO DETAILS WERE FILED IN SPITE OF SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN. 338. LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A. R . OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). 339. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS RAISED BY REVENUE AS PER GROUND NO. 4 IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 90 - 91 IN I.T.A. NO. 486 AND THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY THE TR IBUNAL AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AND IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE AS PER PARA 12TO 14 OF THE TRIBUNAL DECISION IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 90 - 91. SINCE LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY DIFFERENCE IN FACTS IN THE PRESENT YEAR, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON T O TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW IN THIS YEAR. ACCORDINGLY, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE EARLIER TRIBUNAL DECISION, THIS GROUND IS DECIDED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AND IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE. THIS GROUND IS ALLOWED. 340. GROUND NO. 14 IS AS UNDER: 14. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN RESTRICTING THE DISALLOWANCE UP TO THE EXTENT OF 50% OF TOTAL DISALLOWANCE I.E. RS.3,21,374/ - AND ALLOWING THE RELIEF OF RS.3,21,374/ - ON ACCOUNT OF ENTERTAINMENT EXPENDITURE IGNORING THAT TH ESE EXPENSES HIT BY PROVISIONS CONTAINED U/S 37(2A) OF THE I.T. ACT. 341. LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). 79 342. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISS IONS. WE FIND THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS RAISED BY REVENUE AS PER GROUND NO. 27 IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 91 - 92 IN I.T.A. NO. 537 AND THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE AS PER PARA 103 TO 105 OF THE TRIBUNAL DEC ISION IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 91 - 92. SINCE LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY DIFFERENCE IN FACTS IN THE PRESENT YEAR, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW IN THIS YEAR. ACCORDINGLY, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE EARLIER TRIBUNAL DEC ISION, THIS GROUND IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS GROUND IS REJECTED. 343. GROUND NO. 15 IS AS UNDER: 15. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING THE RELIEF OF RS.7,71,123/ - ON ACCOUNT OF OFFI CE MAINTENANCE EXPENDITURE IGNORING THAT THESE EXPENSES SEEMINGLY OF CAPITAL NATURE. 344. L EARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESS EES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 93 - 94 AS PER PARA 281 AND 282 OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER. 345. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE TRIBUNAL DECISION IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 93 - 94. LEARNED DR OF THE REVENUE COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY DIFFERENCE IN FACTS AND THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW IN THE PRESENT YEAR. THIS GROUND IS REJECTED. 346. GROUND NO. 16 IS AS UNDER: 80. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF 80 RS.80,000/ - ON ACCOUNT OF RECRUITMENT EXPENSES, IGNORING THAT THESE EXPENSES WERE RELATED TO GUEST HOUSE EXPENSES WHICH WERE NOT RELATED TO BUSINESS. 347. L EARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 95 - 96 AS PER PARA 425 OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER. 348. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE TRIBUNAL DECISION IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 95 - 96. LEARNED DR OF THE REVENUE COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY DIFFERENCE IN FACTS AND THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW IN THE PRESENT YEAR. THIS GROUND IS REJECTED. 349. GROUND NO. 17 IS AS UNDER: 17. ON TH E FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING THE RELIEF OF RS.1,57,919/ - ON ACCOUNT OF TAXI HIRE CHARGES EXPENSES, EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT ESTABLISH THAT THESE EXPENSES WERE INCURRED FOR THE BUSINESS PURPOSES IN SPITE OF SPECIFIC OPPORTUNITY GIVEN. 350. L EARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESS EES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 95 - 96 AS PER PARA 405 OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER. 351. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE TRIBUNAL DECISION IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSE SSMENT YEAR 95 - 96. LEARNED DR OF THE 81 REVENUE COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY DIFFERENCE IN FACTS AND THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW IN THE PRESENT YEAR. THIS GROUND IS REJECTED. 352. GROUND NO. 18 IS AS UNDER: 18. ON THE FACTS A ND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DIRECTING TO ALLOW THE DEPRECIATION ON THE ASSETS WHICH WERE HELD TO BE A CAPITAL NATURE IN EARLIER YEARS. 353. LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). 354. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT IT IS NOTED BY LEARNED CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICE R HAS MADE DISALLOWANCE OUT OF DEPRECIATION ON THE BASIS THAT OUT OF REPAIRS TO PLANT & MACHINERY, 10% OF MATERIAL COST OF SPARES IS TO BE CONSIDERED AS SCRAP VALUE AND THE SAME SHOULD BE REDUCED FROM THE WDV OF THE PLANT & MACHINERY AND CONSEQUENTLY, THE DEPRECIATION IS TO BE REDUCED TO THAT EXTENT. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, UNLESS THIS IS BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE REVENUE THAT THERE IS ANY SCRAP VALUE REALIZED OR IS REALIZABLE ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF SCRAP, NO SUCH ADJUSTMENT CAN BE MADE IN WDV BECAUSE AS PER EXPLANATION 2 BELOW CLAUSE (II) OF SECTION 32(1), WRITTEN DOWN VALUE OF THE BLOCK OF ASSETS SHALL HAVE THE SAME MEANING AS IN CLAUSE (C) OF SUB SECTION (6) OF SECTION 43 OF THE ACT. AS PER CLAUSE (C) OF SUB SECTION (6) OF SECTION 43, DEDUCTION HAS TO BE MADE FROM OPENING WDV ON ACCOUNT OF SUMS PAYABLE IN RESPECT OF ANY ASSET FALLING WITHIN THAT BLOCK WHICH IS SOLD OR DISCARDED OR DEMOLISHED OR DISTURBED, DURING THAT PREVIOUS YEAR TOGETHER WITH THE AMOUNT OF SCRAP VALUE, IF ANY, SUBJECT TO THIS THAT SUC H DEDUCTION IS NOT EXCEEDING THE WDV. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE SCRAP VALUE SOUGHT TO BE 82 REDUCED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT ON ACCOUNT OF ASSETS BEING SOLD OR DISCARDED OR DEMOLISHED OR DISTURBED. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSET IS PUT TO REPAIR AND T HE MATERIAL USED FOR REPAIR OF PLANT & MACHINERY CANNOT BE SAID TO BE THE SCRAP VALUE ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OR DISCARDING OR DEMOLISHING OR DISTURBING OF THE ASSET IN QUESTION. HENCE, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THERE IS NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND THEREFORE, WE DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. GROUND NO. 18 IS REJECTED. 355. GROUND NO. 19 IS AS UNDER: 19. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.89,17,793/ - ON ACCOUNT OF CLOSING STOCK OF SPARE PARTS EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PROVE THAT ALL ITEMS CHARGED UNDER THIS HEAD WERE ROUTED THROUGH STORES IN SPITE OF SPECIFIC OPPORTUNITY GIVEN. 356. LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). 357. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS RAISED BY REVENUE AS PER GROUND NO. 10 IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 91 - 92 IN I.T.A. NO. 537 AND THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE AS PER PARA 42 TO 44 OF THE TRIBUNAL DECISION IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 91 - 92. SINCE LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY DIFFERENCE IN F ACTS IN THE PRESENT YEAR, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW IN THIS YEAR. ACCORDINGLY, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE EARLIER TRIBUNAL DECISION, THIS GROUND IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS GROUND IS REJECTED. 358. GROUND NO. 20 IS AS UNDER: 83 20. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1,30,82,523/ - ON ACCOUNT OF REPAIRS TO BUILDING EXPENSES, EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PROVE THAT ALL ITEMS CHARGED UNDER T HIS HEAD WERE ROUTED THROUGH STORES IN SPITE OF SPECIFIC OPPORTUNITY GIVEN. 359. LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). 360. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS RAISED BY REVENUE AS PER GROUND NO. 11 IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 91 - 92 IN I.T.A. NO. 537 AND THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE AS PER PARA 45 TO 47 OF THE TRIBUNA L DECISION IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 91 - 92. SINCE LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY DIFFERENCE IN FACTS IN THE PRESENT YEAR, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW IN THIS YEAR. ACCORDINGLY, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE EARLIER TRIBUNA L DECISION, THIS GROUND IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS GROUND IS REJECTED. 361. GROUND NO. 21 IS AS UNDER: 21. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.19,000/ - ON ACCOUNT OF SPORTS PROMOTION EXPENSES, EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PROVE THAT THESE EXPENSES WERE INCURRED FOR THE BUSINESS PURP OSES IN SPITE OF SPECIFIC OPPORTUNITY GIVEN. 362. LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). 363. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT L EARNED CIT(A) HAS DECIDED THIS ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF 84 DECISION OF HIS PREDECESSOR IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN SEVERAL OTHER YEARS I.E. ASSESSMENT YEAR 92 - 93, 93 - 94 AND 96 - 97 TO 98 - 99. THIS IS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE REVENUE THA T THE ORDER OF CIT(A) WAS REVERSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ANY OF THOSE YEARS. NO DIFFERENCE IN FACTS COULD BE POINTED OUT BY LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE. WE, THEREFORE, DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. THIS GROUND IS REJECTED. 364 . GROUND NO. 22 IS AS UNDER: 22. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.13,45,838/ - ON ACCOUNT OF TELEPHONE EXPENSES, IGNORING THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PROVE THAT ALL EXPENSES UND ER THIS HEAD WERE INCURRED WHOLLY & EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE BUSINESS PURPOSES IN SPITE OF SPECIFIC OPPORTUNITY GIVEN. 365. LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). 366. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT THIS ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF SAYAJI IRON AND ENGG. CO. VS. CIT [2002] 253 ITR 749 (GUJ) WHERE IT IS HELD THAT EVEN IF THERE IS PERSONAL USE OF TELEPHONE AND VEHICLES ETC. BY THE DIRECTORS / EMPLOYEES OF THE COMPANY, THE SA ME CAN BE INCLUDED IN THE PERQUISITES VALUE OF THE CONCERNED DIRECTOR/ EMPLOYEE BUT THE DISALLOWANCE CANNOT BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. WE DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A). THIS GROUND IS REJECTED. 367. GROUND NO. 23 IS AS U NDER: 23. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.82,377/ - ON ACCOUNT OF REPAIRS TO OTHER ASSETS 85 EXPENSES IGNORING THE FACT THAT THESE EXPENSES WERE NOT PROPERLY VOUCHED. 368. L EARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESS EES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 93 - 94 AS PER PARA 279 & 280 OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER. 369. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE TRIBUNAL DECISION IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FO R ASSESSMENT YEAR 93 - 94. LEARNED DR OF THE REVENUE COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY DIFFERENCE IN FACTS AND THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW IN THE PRESENT YEAR. THIS GROUND IS REJECTED. 370. GROUND NO. 24 IS AS UNDER: 24. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING RELIEF OF RS.10,00,000/ - ON ACCOUNT OF GUEST HOUSE EXPENSES WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PROVE THE CLEAR NEXUS OF THE EXPENDITURE WITH THE BUSI NESS ACTIVITY. 371. LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). 372. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS RAISED BY REVE NUE AS PER GROUND NO. 28 IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 91 - 92 IN I.T.A. NO. 537 AND THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE AS PER PARA 106 TO 114 OF THE TRIBUNAL DECISION IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 91 - 92. SINCE LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY DIFFERENCE IN FACTS IN THE PRESENT YEAR, WE 86 DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW IN THIS YEAR. ACCORDINGLY, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE EARLIER TRIBUNAL DECISION, THIS GROUND IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSE E. THIS GROUND IS REJECTED. 373. GROUND NO. 25 IS AS UNDER: 25. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN RESTRICTING THE DISALLOWANCE UP TO THE EXTENT 50% ON ACCOUNT OF EXPENSES ON KAMLA RETREAT IGNORING THAT THESE EXPENSES ARE HIT BY SECTION 37(4) AND 37(5) OF THE ACT. 374. LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). 375. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS RAISED BY REVENUE AS PER GROUND NO. 10(A) IN AS SESSMENT YEAR 90 - 91 IN I.T.A. NO. 486 AND THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE AS PER PARA 37 TO 39 OF THE TRIBUNAL DECISION IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 90 - 91. SINCE LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY DIFFERENCE IN FACTS IN THE PRESENT YEAR, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW IN THIS YEAR. ACCORDINGLY, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE EARLIER TRIBUNAL DECISION, THIS GROUND IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS GROUND IS REJECTED. 37 6. GROUND NO. 26 IS AS UNDER: 26. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING RELIEF OF RS.2,79,355/ - ON ACCOUNT OF GUEST HOUSE MAINTAINED IN KAMLA CASTLE AT MUSSORIE EVEN THOUGH NO DETAILS OF THE EXPENDITURE WERE PRODUCED BEFORE HIM AND AS SUCH, THE RELIEF GIVEN IS WITHOUT BASIS. 87 377. LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). 378. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS RAISED BY REVENUE AS PER GROUND NO. 6 IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 91 - 92 IN I.T.A. NO. 537 AND THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE AS PER PARA 30 TO 32 OF THE TRIBUNAL DECISION IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 91 - 92. SINCE LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY DIFFERENCE IN FACTS IN THE PRESENT YEAR, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW IN THIS YEAR. ACCORDINGLY, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE EARLIER TRIBUNAL DECISION, THIS GROUND IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS GROUND IS REJECTED. 379. GROUND NO. 27 IS AS UNDER: 27. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING RELIEF OF RS.1,85,308/ - ON ACCOUNT OF MESS EXPENSES. 380. LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). 381. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS RAISED BY REVENUE AS PER GROUND NO. 12 IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 91 - 92 IN I.T.A. NO. 537 AND THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE AS PER PARA 48 TO 50 OF THE TRIBUNAL DECISION IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 91 - 92. SINCE LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY DIFFERENCE IN FACTS IN THE PRESENT YEAR, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW IN THIS YEAR. ACCORDINGLY, 88 RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE EARLIER TRIBUNAL DECISION, THIS GROUND IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS GROUND IS REJECTED. 382. IN THE, THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ALSO PARTLY ALLOWED. 383. IN THE COMBINED RESULT, ALL FOUR APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE) SD/. SD/. (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ( A. K. GARODIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 3 1 / 08/2015 *C.L.SINGH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. D.R., I.T.A.T., LUCKNOW ASSTT. REGISTRAR