- (1.) This is an appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act filed by the CIT, Meerut, against the order of the Tribunal, dated 4-9-2000 for the assessment year 1991-92, raising the following questions : (1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was legally justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 8,63,240 on account of rent paid by the assessee for hiring certain premises for its training centre which was in the nature of guest house in contravention of provisions of section 37(4) read with section 37(5) of the Income Tax Act ? (2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was legally justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 23,86,696 under section 40A(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act out of payment made to Modi Rubber Ltd. whereas the assessee failed to prove that the claimed amount of expenditure was made for the purpose of business and was commercially expedient ? (3) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was legally justified in holding that the environmental expenses for development of new product was not covered under the provisions of section 43B ignoring the fact that the amount of addition represented customs duty ? (4) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was legally justified in confirming the order of learned Commissioner (Appeals) deleting the disallowance of Rs. 3,05,961 on account of expenses on printing of balance sheet and Rs. 1,80,000 on account of printing and despatch of dividend warrants which was incurred for benefit of shareholders and not for the business " purpose ? (5) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was legally justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 76,929 on account of club membership subscription even though there is no material on record to substantiate that the expenditure is commercially expedient for the purpose of business of the assessee as required by the provisions of section 37(1) of Income Tax Act ? (6) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was legally justified in confirming the order of Commissioner (Appeals) allowing assessees claim of lease charges of Rs. 1,81,44,400 even though the xerox machine and equipments had not passed on the lessors being purchaser of the same goods from the assessee company for certain period and the lease charges were not directly connected with the user of the goods ? (7) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was legally justified in confirming the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) deleting the addition of Rs. 19,64,279 on account of bad debts in absence of any effort for the realisation of the amount in the light of provisions contained in section 36(2) read with section 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act without contemplation of subsequent realisation ? (8) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was legally justified in confirming the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) directing the assessing officer to allow the amount of Rs. 74,05,160 in respect of customs duty under section 43B without appreciating the material available on record ? (9) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was legally justified in confirming the Commissioner (Appeals)s order allowing the claim of the company that it could claim deduction under sections 80HH and 80-1 on two profit making units M/s Xerographic Undertaking and M/s Toner, Developer and Photo Receptor Unit, ignoring third unit M/s Service Trading and others which though had suffered losses yet constituted a unit for the business of the assessee as a whole, in totality and without appreciating the provisions of sections 80AB and 80B(5) of the Income Tax Act?
(2.) Heard Sri R. K. Upadhyay, learned standing counsel, and Sri Rupesh Jain, advocate, along with Sri R. R. Agrawal, advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondent-assessee.
(3.) The respondent is a company engaged in the business of manufacture and sales of photocopier machines, toners, etc.;