Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Modi Spg. and Wvg. Mills Vs. Cit

Modi Spg. and Wvg. Mills vs Cit

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Jan 31, 2002
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/710607

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Delhi High Court
Decided On
Case Number
IT Reference No. 440 of 1984 31 January 2002
Subject
Direct Taxation

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

-

Key legal issue
Direct Taxation

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Modi Spg. and Wvg. Mills

Advocate S.S. Aggarwal, for the assessed; Sanjeev Khanna and; Ajay J

Respondent

Cit

Legal References

Reported In
[2002]123TAXMAN484(Delhi)

Excerpt

- the tribunal has referred the following two questions for the opinion of the court in exercise of its power under section 256(1) of the income tax act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') :'1. whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appellate tribunal erred in holding that the sum of rs. 1,48,437 being expenditure incurred by the company on customers and clients in providing tea, snack, etc., at its various units was in the nature of entertainment expenditure within the meaning of section 37(2) of the income tax act, 1961 ?2. whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the tribunal was right in holding that the assessed was not eligible for the export markets development allowance under section 35b of the act in respect of expenditure of rs. 11,23,227 incurred on freight and cartage for carrying the goods to their destination ?'the mater relates to the assessment year 1975-76.2. the learned counsels for the parties accepted that the first question is covered by a decision of the supreme court in cit v. pate bros. & co. ltd. : [1995]215itr165(sc) in favor of the assessed and against the revenue whereas the second question is covered by two decision of this court in gedore tools (india) (p) ltd. v. cit : [1998]233itr712(delhi) against the assessed and in favor of the revenue.3. following the aforementioned decisions, first question is answered in the affirmative, in favor of the assessed and against the revenue and the second question is answered also in the affirmative, in favor of the revenue and against the assessed.4. reference is accordingly disposed of.

Full Judgment

The Tribunal has referred the following two questions for the opinion of the court in exercise of its power under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') :

'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal erred in holding that the sum of Rs. 1,48,437 being expenditure incurred by the company on customers and clients in providing tea, snack, etc., at its various units was in the nature of entertainment expenditure within the meaning of section 37(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?

2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessed was not eligible for the export markets development allowance under section 35B of the Act in respect of expenditure of Rs. 11,23,227 incurred on freight and cartage for carrying the goods to their destination ?'

The mater relates to the assessment year 1975-76.

2. The learned counsels for the parties accepted that the first question is covered by a decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Pate Bros. & Co. Ltd. : [1995]215ITR165(SC) in favor of the assessed and against the revenue whereas the second question is covered by two decision of this court in Gedore Tools (India) (P) Ltd. v. CIT : [1998]233ITR712(Delhi) against the assessed and in favor of the revenue.

3. Following the aforementioned decisions, first question is answered in the affirmative, in favor of the assessed and against the revenue and the second question is answered also in the affirmative, in favor of the revenue and against the assessed.

4. Reference is accordingly disposed of.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial