Itxa/806/2010 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-6, Mumbai v. M/S. Amar Tea Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

1 itxa806-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.806 OF 2010 The Commissioner of Income Tax-6 ..Appellant. V/s. M/s. Amar Tea Pvt. Ltd. ..Respondent. Mr. Suresh Kumar for appellant. None for respondent. CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATED : 7TH FEBRUARY, 2011 P.C. :- 1.Two questions are raised by the revenue in this appeal which read as under:- a)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was justified in law in allowing the assessee's claim on advertisement and publicity expenditure of Rs.2,30,89.125/- as business expenditure even though the assessee had incurred this expenditure for the benefit of its sister concern, viz. M/s. Hasmukhrai & Co. ?ITAT was justified in law in allowing the assessee's claim on advertisement and publicity expenditure of Rs.2,30,89.125/- as business expenditure even though the assessee had incurred this expenditure for the benefit of its sister concern, viz. M/s. Hasmukhrai & Co. ? b)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was justified in law in confirming the order of CIT(A) deletin the addition of Rs.7,62,708/- made on account of shortage of tea ITAT was justified in law in confirming the order of CIT(A) deletin the addition of Rs.7,62,708/- made on account of shortage of tea of 9024 kgs. ? 2.Counsel for the revenue fairly state that the both the above questions are answered in favour of the assessee in the assessee's own case in Income Tax Appeal No.1084 of 2004 with other matters decided on 20/02/2008. In this view of the matter, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. (MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)