9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Interpretation of provisions u/s 32AB of the Act and treatment of capital expenditure.
Interpretation of provisions u/s 32AB of the Act: The High Court noted that the second question raised by the Revenue was already settled in a previous case, CIT Vs. Antifriction Bearings Corporation Ltd. The Court held that this question cannot be entertained due to the precedent set by the earlier decision. The Court admitted the appeal on the reframed question regarding the inclusion of specific items as profits of business for computing the allowable deduction u/s 32AB of the Act. The Court will consider whether the ITAT was justified in directing the Assessing Officer to include the write-off of Dadri asset and loss on sale/write-off of fixed assets as profits of business, despite these items not being covered under the adjustments specified u/s 32AB(3) of the Act. Treatment of capital expenditure: The parties agreed that the fourth question raised in the appeal does not arise from the order passed by the ITAT being challenged. The Court also admitted the appeal on the question regarding the addition made on account of the disallowance of expenditure on temporary construction of a site office and building, despite it being classified as capital expenditure. The Court will examine whether the ITAT was correct in directing to delete this addition, considering the nature of the expenditure as capital in nature.
|
