- (1.) The above appeal was admitted by an order dated 1st January, 2003 on the following substantial questions of law: "(i) Whether on a proper interpretation of Section 80-O of the I.T.Act the Tribunal was justified in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in restricting the deduction under the said provision to Rs.12,59,063/- by deducting foreign travel expenses of Rs.4,22,000/- from the net amount of Rs.29,40,126/- received by the appellant/petitioner in convertible foreign exchange in India towards fees for Management Services rendered by the appellant/petitioner outside India? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a correct interpretation of the relevant provisions of the I.T. Act read with the Companies Act, 1956 and the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Chainrup Sampatram versus- Commissioner of Income Tax as also the other decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court the Tribunal was justified in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in disallowing the claim for deduction of Central Excise Duty and Customs Duty amounting to Rs.26,31,619/- being the difference between the levies of aforesaid nature pertaining to closing stock of Rs.8,19,83,897/- and the opening stock of Rs.7,93,52,278/- of finished goods, work-inprogress and raw materials which was actually paid within the relevant previous year? (iii) Whether on a correct interpretation of the relevant provisions of law and the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India the Tribunal was justified in confirming the action of the Revenue Authorities in disallowing the claim of deduction of Central Excise Duty and Customs Duty pertaining to closing stock which amount has been debited to Profit & Loss Account and also credited to the Profit & Loss Account in the shape of valuation of closing stock and which amount has actually been paid during the relevant previous year by relying upon the decision of this Hon'ble Court in the case of the appellant/petitioner in I.T.R. 498? (iv) Whether on a proper interpretation of the provisions of section 43-B read with sections 36(1)(va) and 2(24)(x) of the I.T. Act and the object and/or purpose for which section 43-B has been inserted in the I.T. Act and the principles of law laid down by this Hon'ble Court the Tribunal was justified in upholding the disallowance of contributions of Rs.1,54,572/- being the employees' share and employer's share to the Family Pension Fund on the ground of delay in depositing the said contribution for the months of April and July, 1995?"
(2.) The aforesaid appeal was admitted for hearing impugning judgment and order of the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'D' Bench, Kolkata in relation to assessment year 1996-97 in I.T.A. 674 (Cal) of 2000. By the impugned judgment and order learned Tribunal partly granted reliefs to the appellant and rejected partly.
(3.) The short fact is required to be stated to appreciate this case accordingly the same is as follows:-;