Skip to content


Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. L. G. Balakrishna and Bros. Ltd. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberTax Case Petn. No. 561 & 562 of 1982
Reported in(1984)38CTR(Mad)59
AppellantCommissioner of Income Tax
RespondentL. G. Balakrishna and Bros. Ltd.
Excerpt:
- .....of the order of the tribunal.'1. whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appellate tribunal was right in holding that the assessee would be entitled to extra shift allowance in respect of electrical machineries like generator ?2. whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appellate tribunal was right in holding that the expenditure incurred in connection with the provision of coffee, tea, etc. to customers should not be disallowed as being in the nature of an entertainment expenses but should be treated as an admissible expenditure u/s 37(1) of the it act, 1961 ?'so far, as the first question is concerned, ld. counsel for the revenue represents that he is not pressing the said questions.2. so far, as the second question in concerned, it is.....
Judgment:
ORDER

: Ramanujam, J. - These reference application relate to the asst. yrs. 1977-78 and 1978-79. The revenue seeks a reference in these application on the following questions, as arising out of the order of the Tribunal.

'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee would be entitled to extra shift allowance in respect of electrical machineries like generator ?

2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the expenditure incurred in connection with the provision of coffee, tea, etc. to customers should not be disallowed as being in the nature of an entertainment expenses but should be treated as an admissible expenditure u/s 37(1) of the IT Act, 1961 ?'

So far, as the first question is concerned, ld. counsel for the revenue represents that he is not pressing the said questions.

2. So far, as the second question in concerned, it is seen that this court has already decided a similar question in CIT v. Kuppuswamy Nadar & Sons against the revenue. The said decision of the question has subsequently been followed in another decision and that decision is said to be the subject matter of an appeal before the Supreme Court. Since the matter is pending final decision before the Supreme Court the second question should be taken to be at large. We, therefore, direct the Tribunal to state a case referring the second question alone for the opinion of this court.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //