- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the order passed by the I.T.A.T. dated 12.05.2000. While admitting the appeal following question was framed by this Court: - "Despite the fact that the Assessing Officer and C.I.T. (Appeals) disallowed the claim of the assessee on the ground that the details of the items and the expenditures with respect to the advertisement and promotion were not furnished by the assessee, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the Assessing Officer and C.I.T. (Appeals) without considering this question before it.  However, learned counsel for the appellant submits that in addition to the above question the appellant is also challenging the finding of the I.T.A.T whereby the I.T.A.T. has set aside the order passed by the A.O. and the C.I.T. (Appeal) in relation to the dis -allowance of Rs. 8,24,007/ - which alleged to have been incurred by the Assessee for giving gifts and articles or presentation distributed to the various persons including the employees of the Assessing Company.
(3.) WE have considered the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant and we are of the considered opinion that so far as the gift articles are concerned, the I.T.A.T held that though on gift articles there was no Company Logo printed but yet there was Company's official rubber stamp on gift articles, therefore, the gift articles were for the purpose of incentive for promotion of the business. In view of the above reason, the I.T.A.T. held that the Assessee is entitled for the additional benefit and confirmed by the lower authority except a sum of Rs.6,454/ - which was disowned by the Assessee in computation of the total income. The I.T.A.T relied upon the orders passed in the earlier case and held that there was element of advertisement in distribution of these gift articles, therefore, the Assessee was entitled to the benefit.;