The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Central-Ibombay v. M/S Godfrey Philips India Ltd Bombay

Ladda IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX REFERENCE No.176 of 1996. The Commissioner of Income-tax, Central-IBombay ... Applicant. Versus M/s Godfrey Philips India Ltd Bombay ... Respondent. Mr Suresh Kumar for the Applicant.Mr V. Murlidhar i/by Chitnis & Co. for the respondent. CORAM : J.P. Devadhar & A.R. Joshi, JJ. DATE : 16 January, 2012. P.C. :- 1.At the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax Central-I, Bombay the ITA (Tribunal ) has referred the following questions of law for the opinion of this Court. (1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was justified in accepting the change in the method of accounting adopted by the assessee company so as to exclude the excise duty paid from the valuation of closing stock of the finished goods for the assessment years 1987-88 and 1988-89? (2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the caseand in law the Tribunal was justified in holding that the disallowance of Rs.1,29,157/- made by the Assessing Officer out of the expenditure incurred on articles intended for presentation could not be treated as advertisement expenses under Section 37 (3) read with Rule 6B of the I.T.Rules, 1962 for the assessment year 1988-89? Ladda 2.Assessment years involved herein are AY 1987-88 and 1988-89. 3.As regards the first question is concerned, counsel for the parties state that the said question stands answered against the revenue by the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Berger Paints India Ltd vs. CIT reported in 266 ITR 99. Accordingly, the first question is answered in the affirmative i.e. in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. 4.As regards the second question is concerned, the counsel for the parties state that the said question stands answered in favour of the Revenue by the decision of this Court in the case of CIT vs. Allana Sons (P) Ltd reported in 216 ITR 690. Accordingly, the second question is answered in the negative i.e. in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Reference is disposed of accordingly, with n o order as to costs. (A.R.Joshi,J) (J.P.Devadhar,J.)