The ACIT(OSD),-1,Range-4,, Ahmedabad v. Mazda Limited.,, Ahmedabad

ITA 3190/AHD/2008 | 2005-2006
Pronouncement Date: 17-02-2012 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 319020514 RSA 2008
Assessee PAN AABCM9293H
Bench Ahmedabad
Appeal Number ITA 3190/AHD/2008
Duration Of Justice 3 year(s) 5 month(s) 7 day(s)
Appellant The ACIT(OSD),-1,Range-4,, Ahmedabad
Respondent Mazda Limited.,, Ahmedabad
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 17-02-2012
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 17-02-2012
Date Of Final Hearing 13-02-2012
Next Hearing Date 13-02-2012
Assessment Year 2005-2006
Appeal Filed On 10-09-2008
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI MUKUL KUMAR SHRAWAT JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.P. JAIN ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 3190/ AHD/2008 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06) ACIT (OSD)-I RANGE 4 AHMEDABAD VS. M/S. MAZDA LTD. 650/1 PANCHVATI 2 ND LANE AMBAWADI AHMEDABAD PAN/GIR NO. : AABCM9293H (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI G S SOURYAWANSHI SR. DR RESPONDENT BY: SHRI S N SOPARKAR AR DATE OF HEARING: 13.02.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 17.02.2012 O R D E R PER SHRI MUKUL KUMAR SHRAWAT JM:- THIS APPEAL AT THE BEHEST OF THE REVENUE IS EMANAT ED FROM THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) VIII AHMEDABAD DATED 19.06.2008 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. THE GROUNDS RAISED ARE HEREBY DECIDE D AS FOLLOWS: 2. GROUND NO.1 READS AS UNDER: 1. THE ID. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACT S IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 18 81 670/- MADE BY THE A.O. ON ACCOUNT OF LIQUIDATED DAMAGES. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS AS EMERGED FROM THE CORRESPONDIN G ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) DATED 26.12.2007 ARE THAT T HE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING AND TRADING OF MAC HINERY PARTS. IT WAS NOTED BY THE A.O. THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED AN AMOUNT OF I.T.A.NO.3190 /AHD/2008 2 RS.18 81 670/- AS LIQUIDATED DAMAGES. THE EXPLANAT ION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT DUE TO DELAYED DELIVERY AND LATE COMPLIANC E OF THE ORDER CERTAIN PARTIES IMPOSED DAMAGES AS PENALTY ON THE ASSESSEE. WHEN THE MATTER WAS CARRIED BEFORE THE 1 ST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HE HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CAS E PASSED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-98 AND FEW ORDERS OF LD. CIT(A ) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 TO 2004-05. 4. WITH THIS BRIEF FACTUAL BACKGROUND WE HAVE BEEN INFORMED THAT ON IDENTICAL FACTS ITAT A BENCH IN THE ASSESSEES O WN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 BEARING I.T.A.NO. 85/AHD/20 08 ORDER DATED 21.05.2010 HAS FOLLOWED AN EARLIER ORDER IN THE AS SESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-98 BEARING I.T.A.NO. 612/A HD/2001 AND THEREAFTER DISMISSED THE GROUND OF THE REVENUE. S INCE THE FACTUAL AS WELL AS LEGAL POSITION IS IDENTICAL THEREFORE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AS WELL FOLLOWING THE PAST HISTORY AS INDICATED ABOV E WE HEREBY DISMISS THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE. 5. GROUND NO.2 READS AS UNDER:- 2. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.37 65 575/- MADE BY THE A.O. ON ACCOUNT OF DEBIT BALANCE WRITTEN OFF. 6. THE ASSESSEE HAS WRITTEN OFF A SUM OF RS.27 90 3 21/- AND IN COMPLIANCE OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE A PARTY-WISE C HART WAS FURNISHED GIVING THE REASONS FOR WRITING OFF THE SAID AMOUNT. HOWEVER THE A.O. WAS NOT CONVINCED AND DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF BAD D EBT. WHEN THE MATER WAS CARRIED BEFORE THE 1 ST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HE HAS PERUSED THE DETAILS AND OUTSTANDING BALANCE AND HAS NOTED THAT IT WAS A BUSINESS DECISION TO WRITE OFF THE AMOUNT AS BAD DEBT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. WITH THIS BRIEF BACKGROUND WE HAVE BEEN INFORMED THAT N OW THIS ISSUE STOOD I.T.A.NO.3190 /AHD/2008 3 SETTLED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE O F TRF LTD AS REPORTED IN 323 ITR 397 (S.C.). THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE IS THEREFORE DISMISSED. 7. GROUND NO.3 READS AS UNDER: 3. THE ID. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS I N DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.74 03 784/- MADE BY THE A.O. ON ACCO UNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN STOCK. 8. THE A.O. HAS PERUSED THE STATEMENT OF STOCK WHIC H WAS FURNISHED TO THE BANK BY THE ASSESSEE. HE HAS NOTED THAT THE RE WAS DISCREPANCY IN THE STOCK DISCLOSED AS PER THE BANK. A RECONCILIAT ION WAS OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE AS FOLLOWS: 1. STOCK AS PER STATEMENT GIVEN TO THE BANK 516 64008/- (-) LESS STOCK OF OLD ITEMS AND NON MOVING ITEMS WRITTEN OFF/SCRAPPED 2840725/- (-) LESS EXCISE DUTY INCLUDE IN CLOSING STOCK OF RAW MATERIALS DEDUCTED AS PER AS-2 1344328/- (-) LESS DISPATCH MADE BUT NOT REFLECT IN THE BANK STOCK STATEMENT 4563059/- STOCK AS PER BALANCE SHEET 42915896/- 9. IN RESPECT OF THE ADJUSTMENT OF RS.28 40 725/- THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED THE LIST OF NON MOVING ITEMS WHICH WERE WRIT TEN OFF BY THE ASSESSEE. THE A.O. WAS NOT CONVINCED AND HELD THAT SINCE THE VALUE OF THE SAME HAVE ALREADY BEEN TAKEN IN THE STOCK STATE MENT FURNISHED TO THE BANK AS ON 31.03.2005 THEREFORE THE SAID ADJUSTME NT NOT TO BE ALLOWED. FURTHER IN RESPECT OF AN ADJUSTMENT OF RS.45 63 05 9/- THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE SALE HAVE BEEN EFFECTED A ND THE ITEMS WERE DISPATCHED THEREFORE IT IS REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS . HOWEVER THE A.O.S STAND WAS THAT THERE WAS NO SATISFACTORY PROOF THAT WHY IT WAS SHOWN IN I.T.A.NO.3190 /AHD/2008 4 THE BANK STOCK STATEMENT HENCE REJECTED THE CLAIM. THE MATTER WAS CARRIED BEFORE LD. CIT(A). AFTER HEARING THE SUBMI SSIONS AND ON PERUSAL OF THE RECORDS LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION AFT ER ASSIGNING THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 5.2 BEFORE ME THE A.R. SUBMITTED A RECONCILIATION FOR THE STOCK DIFFERENCE WHICH IS THE REPETITION OF WHAT WAS SUBM ITTED BEFORE THE A.O. IT IS THE CONTENTION OF THE A R THAT THE APPEL LANT FINALIZED THE BANK STATEMENT EARLIER TO THE CLOSING DATE OF 31.3. 2005 AND THE STOCK SUBMITTED TO THE BANK WAS AN UN-AUDITED FIGUR E WHERE AS THE STOCK REFLECTED IN THE BALANCE SHEET WAS AN AUDITED FIGURE. THE ADJUSTMENT IN STOCK STATEMENT WAS DECIDED JOINTLY BY THE DIRECTOR FINANCIAL CONTROLLER ACCOUNT MANAGER AND OTHER OFF ICERS OF THE COMPANY SO THIS I WAS DECIDED SUBSEQUENT TO 31.3.2 005. IT WAS ALSO PLEADED THAT NORMALLY THE ASSESSEES DECLARE I HIGHER STOCK FIGURE TO THE BANK SO THAT THEIR CASH CREDIT LIMIT WOULD BE MORE AND NORMALLY BANK I DOES NOT ASK FOR AUDITED FIGURE O F STOCK SO THERE IS BOUND TO BE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE AUDITED ; FIGURE AND UNAUDITED FIGURE. THE A.R. HAS CITED VARIOUS DECISI ONS AND IT HAS BEEN PLEADED THAT WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE THAT THE CLA IM OF THE APPELLANT WAS NOT CORRECT NO ADDITION COULD HAVE B EEN MADE AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. IT IS ALSO A GENERAL FACT T HAT GOODS ARE DISPATCHED IN THE LAST WEEK OF MARCH INCLUDING THE LAST DATE OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR AND THE LAST DISPATCHES HAVE NOT BEE N REFLECTED IN THE BANK STATEMENT. AS I FIND THE CONTENTION OF THE A.R . TO BE TENABLE AND AS THERE IS NO EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF EXCESS ST OCK EXCEPT FOR THE BANK STATEMENT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. IS HELD TO BE NOT JUSTIFIED AND THE SAME IS DELETED. 10. HAVING HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE SIDES AND ON EXAMINATION OF THE FACTS PLACED ON RECORD WE HAVE NOTED THAT A S FAR AS THE POSITION OF STOCK WITH THE BANK IS CONCERNED THE SAME WAS HYPO THECATED WITH STATE BANK OF INDIA. IN RESPECT OF NON MOVING ARTICLES O F STOCK IT WAS STATED BY THE LD. A.R. BEFORE US THAT THE ARTICLES ARE ITEMS OF RAW MATERIAL WRITTEN OFF DURING THE YEAR. A LONG LIST IN THE PAPER BOOK OF THOSE ITEMS HAS BEEN PLACED TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE SMALL ARTICLES WERE NOT IN USE IN PAST FEW I.T.A.NO.3190 /AHD/2008 5 YEARS AND HENCE THOSE WERE WRITTEN OFF IN THE BOOK S. LD. A.R. HAS ALSO STATED THAT THE STATEMENT WAS FURNISHED TO THE BANK PRIOR TO THE CLOSE OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND HENCE THOSE WERE MADE PART OF STOCK STATEMENT BEFORE THE BANK. HOWEVER WHEN INVENTORY OF STOCK W AS TAKEN AT THE CLOSE OF THE ACCOUNTING PERIOD THE SAME WAS NOT RECORDED THEREIN. NEXT IN RESPECT OF THE OTHER ITEM OF CONTROVERSY A LIST OF ALL THE SALES INVOLVED THROUGH WHICH THE STOCK WAS DISPATCHED TO VARIOUS P ARTIES ALONG WITH THEIR NAMES INVOICE NUMBER PLACED ON RECORD. A S PER THE SAID DETAILS THE DATES OF INVOICES WERE STARTING FROM 28.03.2005 TO 31.03.2005 AND ON THIS BASIS IT IS CLAIMED THAT THE SAID STOCK WAS N OT ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE REAS ON GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE FOR NON INCLUSION OF THESE TWO ITEMS IN TH E BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ON ACCOUNT OF CLOSE OF ACCOUNTING PERIOD WAS GENUINE A S ALSO ACCEPTABLE. WE THEREFORE FIND NO FALLACY IN THE RELIEF GRANTE D BY THE LD. CIT(A). THE SAME IS HEREBY CONFIRMED AND THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 11. GROUND NO.4 READS AS UNDER: 4. THE ID. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 18 45 993/- MADE BY THE A.O. ON ACCOUNT OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON FOREIGN RAINING OF THE DIRE CTORS DAUGHTER AS EMPLOYEE OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. 12. IT WAS NOTED BY THE A.O. THAT UNDER THE HEAD S TAFF TRAINING AN AMOUNT OF RS.18 45 993/- WAS CLAIMED. THE EXPLANAT ION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT MS. S S MODI HAD GONE TO U.K. FOR FURTHER TRAINING AND EDUCATION IN LEARNER SCHOOL OF ECONOMIC AND POLITIC AL SCIENCE. THE BREAKUP OF THE EXPENDITURE WAS AS UNDER: (A) TRAVELING EXPENSES 68706/- (B) FEES 978062/- (C) BOARDING & LODGING 793290/- I.T.A.NO.3190 /AHD/2008 6 (D) MISCELLANEOUS 5935/- TOTAL 1845993/- 13. THE A.O. HAS FOUND THAT MS. S S MODI IS THE DAU GHTER OF ONE OF THE DIRECTORS. ACCORDING TO THE A.O. THE EXPENDITURE WAS IN THE NATURE OF PROVIDING BENEFIT TO A RELATIVE FOR THE PURPOSE OF PERSONAL GAIN AND NOT FOR THE PURPOSES OF BUSINESS. THE A.O. HAS PLACED RELI ANCE ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: I) CIT VS HINDUSTAN HOSIERY INDUSTRIES 209 ITR 38 3 (BOM.) II) M. SUBRAMANIAM BROS. VS CIT 250 ITR 769 (MAD .) III) CIT VS R.K.K.R. STEELS (P) LTD. 258 ITR 306 (MAD.) IV) MAC EXPLOTEC (P) LTD. VS CIT 286 ITR 378 (KA R.) 14. WHEN THE MATTER WAS CARRIED BEFORE LD. CIT(A) HE HAS GIVEN HIS FINDING AS FOLLOWS: I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE A.R. CAREF ULLY. IT IS FOUND THAT MS. S. S. MODI DAUGHTER OF DIRECTOR WAS ALREA DY AN EMPLOYEE OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY PRIOR TO THE FOREIGN TRAIN ING AND SHE WAS QUALIFIED ON HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT FROM UNIVER SITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES AUSTRALIA AT THE TIME OF JOINING T HE COMPANY AND SHE WENT FOR FURTHER STUDIES IN LONDON SCHOOL O F ECONOMICS FOR SPECIALIZATION IN INTERNATIONAL EMPLOYMENT RELA TIONS & HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT .THUS HER TRAINING WAS RELATED TO H.R. FIELD AND AFTER THE TRAINING WAS OVER SHE HAS BEEN PROMO TED AS DIRECTOR IN THE COMPANY. AS PER THE SERVICE AGREEMENT SHE WAS TO JOIN THE COMPANY AFTER COMING BACK FROM TRAINING AND A BOND WAS EXECUTED SAYING THAT IF SHE WAS NOT GOING TO JOIN OR IF SHE LEFT THE COMPANY BEFORE SIX YEARS SHE HAD TO REIMBURSE BACK THE E XPENSES TO THE APPELLANT COMPANY THE WHOLE EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON HER TRAINING ALONG WITH INTEREST. CONSIDERING THE SERVICE A GREEMENT AND THE IMPORTANCE OF TRAINING IN H.R. FOR THE GROWTH OF T HE COMPANY AND THE FACT THAT SHE WAS ALREADY AN EMPLOYEE OF THE AP PELLANT COMPANY PRIOR TO THE TRAINING I WOULD HOLD THAT THE EXPEN DITURE IS ALLOWABLE AS BUSINESS EXPENDITURE . I FURTHER FIND THAT THE C ASES CITED BY THE A.O. ARE RELATED TO SON OF PARTNER IN TWO CASES (1) CIT VS. HINDUSTAN HOSIERY INDUSTRIES -209 ITR 383 (BOM.) (2 ) M. SUBRAMANIAM BROS. VS. CIT - 250 ITR 769 (MAD.) AND IN THE OTHER CASE OF CIT VS. R.K.K.P. STEELS (P) LTD 258 ITR 306 I.T.A.NO.3190 /AHD/2008 7 (MAD) THE SON OF THE DIRECTOR BECAME DIRECTOR SUBS EQUENTLY AND HE WAS NOT AN EMPLOYEE EARLIER. IN VIEW OF THE ABO VE FACTS AS THE TRAINING OF MS. S. S. MODI WAS INCURRED FOR THE PUR POSE OF BUSINESS OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY THE EXPENDITURE IS HELD TO BE ALLOWABLE AND THE DISALLOWANCE IS DELETED. 15. BEFORE US IS A SERVICE AGREEMENT PLACED O N REC ORD EXECUTED BY M/S. MAZDA LTD. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ON ONE HAND A ND MS. SHANAYA S MODI DAUGHTER OF MR. SOHRAB MODI ON THE OTHER HAND . OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN ON THE FOLLOWING IMPORTANT CLAUSES: 1. THE COMPANY AGREES TO SEND MS SM WHOSE PRESENT DESIGNATION IS H.R. MANAGER TO LONDON FOR PURSUING MSC IN INTERNATIONAL EMPLOYMENT RELATION & HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT A COURSE OF 15 MONTHS. THE ENTIRE EXPEN DITURE OF THE COURSE I.E. COURSE FEES BOARDING AND LODGING ARID RETURN AIR FARE SHALL BE BORNE BY THE COMPANY 2. MS SM AGREES SHE WOULD CONTINUE HER EMPLOYMENT WITH THE COMPANY AND HEAD THE HR DEPARTMENT ON COMPLETION OF THE COURSE. 3. MS. SM AGREES THAT IN THE EVENTUALITY OF SHE BE ING UNABLE TO CONTINUE WITH THE COMPANY WITHIN FOUR WEEKS FROM TH E COMPLETION OF THE COURSE THEN SHE WILL BE BOUND TO PAY TO THE COMPANY THE ENTIRE AMOUNT SPEND BY THE COMPANY ON HER STUDIES I N LONDON INCLUDING RETURN AIR FARE ALONG WITH INTEREST OF 12 % FROM THE DATE OF PAYMENT. 4. MS. SM FURTHER AGREES THAT SHE WILL BE IN SERVIC E OF THE COMPANY FOR AT LEAST SIX YEARS AS HR IN CHARGE AND OTHER RE SPONSIBILITIES IF ANY GIVEN TO HER BY THE COMPANY. 5. MS. SM AGREES THAT IN DUE EVENTUALITY THAT SHE L EAVES THE JOB DURING I.E. SIX YEARS ASSURED BY HER TO THE COMPANY SHE WILL BE LIABLE TO PAY TO THE COMPANY IN THE PROPORTION OF T HE AMOUNTS SPENT AND UNFINISHED/ PORTION OF THE TENURE WITH THE COMP ANY. 16. APART FROM THIS SERVICE AGREEMENT THE LD. A.R. HAS VEHEMENTLY PLEADED THAT MS. S. S. MODI HAS ALREADY OBTAINED A DEGREE IN HUMAN RESOURCES AND DEVELOPMENT FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF NE W SOUTH WALES AUSTRALIA. THEREAFTER SHE HAS OBTAINED AN APPOINT MENT WITH THE ASSESSEE I.T.A.NO.3190 /AHD/2008 8 COMPANY AND AT THAT TIME WHEN SHE WAS SENT ABROAD FOR HIGHER EDUCATION SHE WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. THE L D. A.R. HAS ALSO INFORMED THAT THE TOTAL INCOME AS PER THE RETURN WA S TO THE EXTENT OF RS.3 98 64 134/- AND CONSIDERING THE HIGH VOLUME OF TURNOVER AND THE STRENGTH OF THE EMPLOYEES OF THE COMPANY IT WAS TA KEN A BUSINESS DECISION TO S END HER FOR FURTHER STUDIES. LD. A.R . HAS ALSO INFORMED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS A PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY AN D THEREFORE IT WAS A DECISION TO ESTABLISH A FULL FLEDGED PERSONNEL DE PARTMENT FOR CATERING THE HUMAN RESOURCES REQUIREMENT OF THE COMPANY. MS. M ODI WAS ALREADY APPOINTED BECAUSE SHE HAD MET THE QUALIFICATION REQ UIREMENT FOR THE SAID JOB. ANOTHER POINT AS HAS BEEN EXPLAINED THAT AFTE R RETURN FORM UK SHE HAS JOINED THE COMPANY AS SHE WAS UNDER OBLIGATION TO SERVE THE COMPANY. IN SUPPORT HER SALARY PAYMENT FORM 2006- 07 TO 2010-11 ARE PLACED ON RECORD. A STATEMENT HAS BEEN MADE AT BAR THAT STILL MS. MODI IS WORKING AS A WHOLE TIME DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY. WI TH THIS FACTUAL BACKGROUND RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE DECISION IN T HE CASE OF ACIT VS PRIME CHEMICALS RENDERED IN I.T.A.NO. 3782/AHD/2004 DATED 27.03.2009. LD. A.R. HAS ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON T HE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS RAS INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES (KTK.) AS RE PORTED IN 238 CTR 76. 17. ON THE OTHER HAND FROM THE SIDE OF THE REVENUE LD. D.R. MR. G. S. SOURYAWANSHI HAS SAID THAT HAD IT WAS NOT A CASE OF A DAUGHTER OF A DIRECTOR THEN THE COMPANY WOULD NOT HAVE SENT ITS E MPLOYEE ON SUCH HIGH EXPENDITURE FOR FURTHER STUDIES OUTSIDE INDIA. ACC ORDING TO HIM THE COMPANY HAS NOT SANCTIONED HIGHER EDUCATION FOR ANY OTHER EMPLOYEE. 18. HAVING HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS FROM BOTH THE SIDE S WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECI SION OF HONBLE I.T.A.NO.3190 /AHD/2008 9 KARNATAKA HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF RAS TE CHNOLOGIES (SUPRA) WHEREIN THE EXPENDITURE FOR FOREIGN EDUCATION OF MA NAGING DIRECTORS SON WAS HELD AS BUSINESS EXPENDITURE AND THEREFORE DIRECTED TO ALLOW THE SAME. FOLLOWING THIS DECISION AND THE DECISION REF ERRED BY LD. CIT(A) WE HEREBY CONFIRM THE RELIEF AND RESULTANTLY THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE IS HEREBY DISMISSED. 19. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE REVENUE STANDS DIS MISSED. 20. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED HEREINABOVE. SD./- SD./- (B.P. JAIN) (MUKUL KUMAR SHRAWAT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER SP COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPLICANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) 5. THE DR AHMEDABAD BY ORDER 6. THE GUARD FILE AR ITAT AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION 13/2 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 14/1.OTHER MEMBER 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P .S./P.S. 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 17/2 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. P.S./P.S.17/2 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 17/2/2012 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK .. 8. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER . 9. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER. .