SUJATA MANOHAR, J. - (1.) THIS is an application under section 256(2) of the Income -tax Act, 1961, made by the Commissioner of Income -tax for the purpose of directing the Income -tax Appellate Tribunal to state the case and raise and refer to this court, the questions which are set out in the application. The petition has been admitted only in respect of question No. 2, which is as follows: '2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the expenditure on articles intended for presentation is not to be considered for disallowance under rule 6B(1)(a) of the Income -tax Rules, 1962?' This question pertains to the assessment year 1979 -80. For that year, the Assessing Officer disallowed, in the course of the assessment, a sum of Rs. 10,905 by applying the provisions of rule 6B of the Income -tax Rules. This expenditure was in respect of articles of presentation or gift incurred by the assessee. The Tribunal has held that these presentation articles did not bear either the name of the company nor its logo and could not be considered as meant for advertisement and, hence, rule 6B would not be attracted. In view of these findings of fact which are arrived at by the Tribunal, if we examine rule 6B, it becomes clear that rule 6B deals with expenditure on advertisement. Rule 6B(1) provides that the allowance in respect of expenditure on advertisement shall not, inter alia, in respect of articles intended for presentation, exceed the limits which are set out in that rule. Therefore, articles intended for presentation must be such articles which advertise the company's wares in some manner or the other. In the present case, the Tribunal has found as a fact that the presentation articles were not in the nature of advertisement. In view thereof, the Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that rule 6B is not attracted. We may also add that the assessment for the relevant year was nil assessment and the amount involved in the present petition is only Rs. 10,905. Hence, no useful purpose would be served by granting the rule, in any event.
(2.) WE , therefore, discharge the rule with no order as to costs.;