Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Indo Nippon

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O.O.C.J. INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.221 OF 2002 The Commissioner of Income-tax-I,Mumbai City-V, Mumbai.. Appellantv/s.M/s. Spaco Carburettors (India)Ltd... Respondent Mr.K.R.Chaudhary i/by Mr.H.D.Rathod for appellant. Mr.RAK Najaam Saani for respondent. CORAM: R.M.LODHA ANDJ.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED:27thAugust, 2004 P.C. Heard Mr. K.R.Chaudhary, the learned counsel for the revenue. 2. In the memorandum of appeal, two questions of law have been proposed which read thus- "1.Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case and in law,the Tribunal was right in law inconfirming the order of the CIT(A) indeleting the disallowance ofRs.1,43,301/- made under Rule 6B ofthe Income Tax Rules the expenditureincurred on presentation of articlesand gifts that they did not bear anylogo or name of the assessee andfurther failed to appreciate thatevery article presented at leastcarried a visiting card of the topexecutives of the company whichitself tantamount to advertisement?2.Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case and in lawthe Tribunal was right in law in confirming the order of the CIT(A) indeleting the addition ofRs.9,64,302/- made by the assessingofficer to the value of Closing Stockon account of unutilised modvatcredit?" 3. The learned counsel for the revenue could notdispute that the controversy raised in proposedquestion No.1 is concluded by the judgment of thiscourt in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v.Allana Sons Pvt.Ltd., 216 ITR 690. The question No.1, thus, cannot be said to be substantial question of law. 4. As regards the proposed question No.2, we findthat the said question stands concluded by thejudgment of the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Indo Nippon Chemicals Co.Ltd., 261 ITR 275. 5. The appeal, therefore, does not deserve to be admitted and is dismissed. (R.M.LODHA, J.)(J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)