Punjab And Haryana High Court · 2009

Present:- Mr. Rajesh Katoch, Standing Counsel for the revenue. Mr. Santosh Aggarwal and Mr. A.C.Jain, Advocates for the respondent-assessee. Adarsh Kumar Goel,J.

The revenue has filed this appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) against the order dated 23.2.2007 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench ‘A’ New Delhi, in ITA No.3433/DEL/200, for the assessment year 1997-98, proposing to raise following substantial questions of law:- ITA No.224 of 2008 (O&M) 2

i) Whether the Hon’ble ITAT has erred in law in confirming the order of the CIT(A) in which the disallowance of Rs.3,14,809/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of Foreign Tour of MD’s wife was deleted? ii) Whether the Hon’ble ITAT has erred in law in confirming the order of the CIT(A) vide which the disallowance of Rs.9,20,591/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of commission paid to Managing Director and the Executives, was deleted? iii) Whether the Hon’ble ITAT has erred in law in confirming the order of the CIT(A) vide which the disallowance of Rs.4,32,155/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of personal use of Car was deleted?

Learned counsel for the parties agree that question No.(i) is covered in favour of the assessee by order of this Court dated 30.7.2007 in ITA No.220 of 2007 (Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad vs.M/s Porrits & Spencers (Asia) Limited, Faridabad). It is, however, clarified that the question is not correctly framed ITA No.224 of 2008 (O&M) 3 as the Tribunal has allowed 50% of the claim and not the whole of it.

It is also stated that Question No.(ii) is covered by order passed by this Court dated 5.3.2009 in the case of the assessee in ITA No.540 of 2006 (CIT v. M/s Porrits & Spencer (A) Limited, Faridabad), while Question No.(iii) is covered in favour of the assessee by order of this Court dated 5.3.2009 in ITA No.38 of 2008 (CIT v. M/S Porrits and Spencers Limited).