1994 (11) TMI 74 - HC - Income Tax

Business Expenditure, Capital Or Revenue Expenditure, Development Allowance, Finding Of Fact, Question Of Law, Tea Estate, Weighted Deduction

Summary

Issues:
Assessments for five different years, Questions of law, Allowance of expenses, Deductibility of expenditure, Consultancy fee, Industrial company status, Processing activity, Weighted deduction, Revenue expenditure, Business expenditure, Bonus payment deduction, Deduction under section 35B, Deduction under section 36(1)(ii), Commission payment deduction.

Analysis:
The judgment concerns assessments made on the assessee for five different years. Various questions were raised, some of which were deemed as questions of law liable to be referred, while others were considered questions of fact or already covered by previous court decisions. The court declined to refer questions related to disallowance under section 40A(5) of the Income-tax Act for certain years, as they were already covered by previous court decisions.

The court also declined to refer questions related to deductibility of replanting expenditure, processing of tea as an industrial activity, blending of tea, consultancy fee paid to a tea estate, and bonus payment deductions, as these were either questions of fact or already decided by previous court judgments. The judgment highlighted that certain questions did not require reference as they were self-evident or based on factual findings.

However, the court identified specific questions for each assessment year that were deemed as questions of law and required referral. These questions pertained to various deductions, allowances, and weighted deductions under different sections of the Income-tax Act. The court directed the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to refer these specific questions for the court's opinion under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, while declining the reference for other questions discussed earlier in the judgment.

In conclusion, the court provided a detailed analysis of each question raised by the assessee, determining which questions were of law and required referral and which questions were either factual or already decided by previous court judgments. The judgment emphasized the importance of distinguishing between questions of law and questions of fact in deciding whether they should be referred for further consideration.