Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Ludhiana v. M/S Hero Cycles Ltd., Ludhiana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH. Date of Decision: 30.01.2015 LT.A.No.192 of 2001 Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ludhiana ...Appellant Versus M/s Hero Cycles Ltd., Ludhiana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICK HEMANT GUPTA ©HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARI PAL VERMA 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? |2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present :Ms. Savita Saxena, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Aalok Mittal, Advocate, for the respondent. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The Revenue 1s in appeal under Section 260 A of the Income Tax|Act, 1961 (for short “the Act’) aggrieved against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for short ‘the|Tribunal’) on 23.11.2000 relating to the assessment year 1989-90. The Revenue| - appellant has raised the following substantial questions of law: (1)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the|Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in confirming the|order of the Id. CIT (A) in deleting the addition of Rs.34,79,900/-|made on account of closing stock of stores, spare-partes and tools|etc.?Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in confirming the|order of the Id. CIT (A) in deleting the addition of Rs.34,79,900/-|made on account of closing stock of stores, spare-partes and tools|etc.? (11)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding the)amount of Rs.4,75,816/- spent on Gift-items like shawls, watches,|tea-sets and other misc. items distributed amongst the dealers as)business expenditure?Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding the)amount of Rs.4,75,816/- spent on Gift-items like shawls, watches,|tea-sets and other misc. items distributed amongst the dealers as)business expenditure? The first substantial question of law has been answered 1n favour ofthe Revenue and against the assessee vide separate order of today rendered in|LT.A.No.68 of 2001 titled ‘Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), LudhianaVs. M/s Highway Cycle Industries Ltd.> The said question 1s, thus, answered infavour of the revenue for the same reasons as are recorded therein. Now coming to the second substantial question of law, the same1s |covered by the judgment of this Court in|Commissioner of [Income Tax VsAvon Cycles Ltd. (2008) 303 ITR 345 Consequently, while answering the first substantial question of law|in favour of the appellant — Revenue and second substantial question of law in|favour of the respondent — assessee, the present appeal 1s partly allowed. 30.01.2015 |Vimal (HEMANT GUPTA)JUDGE (HARI PAL VERMA)JUDGE