The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Haryana, Rohtak v. M/S Porrits & Spencer (Asia) Ltd., Faridabad

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH. I.T.R. No.124 of 1989 Date of decision: 16.09.2008 The Commissioner of Income-tax, Haryana, Rohtak. Vs. M/s Porrits & Spencer (Asia) Ltd., Faridabad. -----Applicant -----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOELHON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present:Mr. Yogesh Putney, Sr. Standing Counselfor the revenue.for the revenue. ORDER: Mr. A.C. Jain, Advocate for assessee. ----- Following questions of law have been referred for opinion ofthis Court by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ Bench , New Delhi,arising out I.T.A. No.3218/1985 in respect of assessment year 1974-75:- “1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding thatthe addition of Rs.16,894/- on a/c of bonus paid toexecutives of the assessee-company was justified?case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding thatthe addition of Rs.16,894/- on a/c of bonus paid toexecutives of the assessee-company was justified?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding thatthe HRA paid to the executives of the company couldnot be considered perquisite in terms of sec.40-A (5)of the I.T. Act, 1961?case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding thatthe HRA paid to the executives of the company couldnot be considered perquisite in terms of sec.40-A (5)of the I.T. Act, 1961? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase, the Tribunal is justified in holding that thetraveling expenses of Shri H.S. Ingham are notcovered by the provisions of Rule 6-D of the I.T. Act,1961 and, therefore, nothing can be disallowed out ofthe said expenses? 4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that Rs.3,088/- being telephone expenses incurred by the companyon the telephones provided at the residences of itsexecutives could not be added to the assessee-company’s total income? 5. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase, the Tribunal was justified in holding thatRs.18,318/- being notional interest on interest freeloans given to employees, could not be regarded asperquisite under sec.40-A(5) of the I.T. Act, 1961? 6. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in deleting theaddition of Rs.5,000/- made on account ofmaintenance of accommodation provided to Shri N.Nath?” The questions referred above except question Nos.1 and 6 are covered by our order passed today in I.T.R. Nos.80 to 82 of 1982 (M/s Porrits & Spencer (Asia) Ltd., New Delhi v. TheCommissioner of Income-tax, Haryana). The said questions areaccordingly, decided in same terms. Even though the language of question No.1 is slightlydifferent from question No.(x) in I.T.R. No.80 to 82 of 1982, the issuebeing identical, the said question will stand answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. Similarly, the language ofquestion No.6 though slightly different, the said question in substanceis identical to question Nos.(xxvi) and (xxviii) in I.T.R. Nos.80 to 82 of1982 (M/s Porrits & Spencer (Asia) Ltd., New Delhi v. TheCommissioner of Income-tax, Haryana). Moreover, this issue hasalready been decided in favour of the assessee in earlier judgments ofthis Court inCIT v. Porritts & Spencer (Asia) Limited (2002) 255ITR 189. The reference is disposed of accordingly. ( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL )JUDGE September 16, 2008 ashwani ( RAKESH KUMAR GARG )JUDGE