The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Rohtak v. M/S The Atlas Cycle Industries Limited, Sonepat
High Court
20 Jul 2010 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · phhc
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Rohtak v. M/S The Atlas Cycle Industries Limited, Sonepat
Date of order
20 Jul 2010
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Rohtak v. M/S The Atlas Cycle Industries Limited, Sonepat, the High Court (2010) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: The appeals are dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH.
ITA No.115 of 2004
Date of decision: 20.7.2010
The Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak
-----Appellant
Vs.
M/s The Atlas Cycle Industries Limited, Sonepat
----Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOELHON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL
Present:-Mr. Krishan Kumar Mehta, Advocate for the revenue.Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate for the assessee.
Adarsh Kumar Goel,J.
This order will dispose of ITA Nos.273 to 275 of 2003, 115 of2004 and 105 of 2005 as all these appeals involve common questions oflaw. Facts have been taken from ITA No.115 of 2004.
This appeal has been preferred by the revenue under Section260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act’) against order dated7.7.2003 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench ‘A’,New Delhi in ITA No.2608/Del/99 for the assessment year 1995-96,proposing to raise following substantial questions of law:-
“i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case,
the Hon’ble ITAT has erred in law in restricting thedisallowance made by the AO out of entertainment expensesto 60% and allowing balance 40% treating as normalbusiness expenditure without any evidence on record to
prove that the entertainment expenditure on employees wasincurred in office, factory and other place of their work?ii) Whether the facts and in the circumstances of the case,the Hon’ble ITAT has erred in ignoring the explanation 2(iii) to section 37(2) which lays down that only theexpenditures incurred by the Assessee on its employees inthe office, factory or other place of business is allowable?”
In view of our order passed today in ITA No.161 of 2002 (TheCommissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak v. The Atlas Cycle IndustriesLimited, Sonepat), the questions proposed have to be decided against therevenue and in favour of the assessee. We order accordingly. The appeals are dismissed.
(Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge (Ajay Kumar Mittal) Judge
July 20, 2010‘gs’
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.