IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTIOLN NO.184 OF 2007 IN INCOME TAX APPEAL LODG. NO.2493 OF 2006 The Commissioner of Income Tax. ..Appellant. Vs. M/s.Asian Paints India Ltd. ..Respondent. Mrs. P.P. Bhosale with Mr.B.M.Chatterji & Mr.P.S.Sahadevan for the Appellant. Mr.S.S.Shetty for the Respondent. CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & R.S. MOHITE, JJ. DATED : 16TH JANUARY,2008. PC : 1. There is a delay of 241 days in preferring the appeal. There is affidavit in support of the notice of the motion. Considering the cause shown, in our opinion, though the same has been opposed by the counsel for the respondent would amount to sufficient cause and consequently the delay condoned. Office to register the appeal. (R.S. MOHITE, J.) (F.I. REBELLO, J.) IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL LODG. NO.2493 OF 2006 The Commissioner of Income Tax. ..Appellant. Vs. M/s.Asian Paints India Ltd. ..Respondent. Mrs. P.P. Bhosale with Mr.B.M.Chatterji & Mr.P.S.Sahadevan for the Appellant. Mr.S.S.Shetty for the Respondent. CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & R.S. MOHITE, JJ. DATED : 16TH JANUARY,2008. PC : 1. The revenue has preferred this appeal on the following questions of law. (i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned ITAT was right in deleting the disallowance of Rs.34,59,776/- made under Rule 6B of the I.T.Rules without appreciating that every article presented carried visiting card of the top executive of the assessee company that tentamounted to advertisement? (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned ITAT was right in holding the findings of CIT(A), that only 10% of sum of Rs.95,61,911/- (which include the amount of Rs.34,59,776/- on account of articles meant for presentation), representing the expenses in respect of gifts and articles was disallowable, when CIT(A) had himself come to the conclusion that the assessee had not discharged the onus of providing that the expenditure had been incurred wholly and solely for the business purpose? 2. So far as first question is concerned the only finding recorded is that the article presented carried visiting card of the top executive of the assessee company. This court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Allana Sons Pvt. Ltd (216 ITR 690) has taken a view that the articles intended for presentation must be such articles which advertise the company’s wares in some manner or the other. In that case on facts it was found that the presentation articles did not bear the name of the company or its logo. In the present case also there is no finding that either the name of the company or logo was used in the visiting card along with the articles presented. In our opinion, therefore, the judgment of Allana Sons Pvt. Ltd. (cited supra) would squarely cover the present case and accordingly the Question No.1 as framed would not arise. 3. In so far as second question is concerned, the learned Tribunal after considering the material on record restricted the disallowance to 10% of the total expenditure. Our attention is also invited to the judgment of this court in the case of CIT (Central) Vs. Piramal Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. reported in 124 ITR 408. The learned bench of this court considering the facts of the said case held that the percentage allowed to the assessee by way of weighted deduction was a question of estimation to be arrived at on the fact and the materials on record and did not give rise to any question of law. In our opinion, the second question as framed as such would also not arise. In the light of above, appeal is dismissed. (R.S. MOHITE, J.) (F.I. REBELLO, J.)