|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 181 to 200 of 269 Records
-
1994 (1) TMI 89
The High Court of Judicature at Madras heard a writ petition regarding the supply of raw materials and collection of beedies by contractors to home workers. The petition sought a writ of mandamus to prevent interference with the contractors' rights. The Collector of Central Excise, Madurai, agreed to allow collecting centers for raw materials, provided they are registered and maintain necessary records as per Central Excise Law. The court ordered to record the Collector's statement and directed the respondents to permit the contractors to supply raw materials and maintain records accordingly. No further orders were issued, and no costs were awarded.
-
1994 (1) TMI 88
The purpose of setting up this High Power Committee was to ensure that as far as possible, the controversies between a Ministry and a Ministry of the Government of India, a Ministry and a Public Sector Undertaking of the Government of India and between Public Sector Undertakings themselves are resolved by recourse to the High Power Committee and that time consuming and expensive litigation is avoided. Wherever appeals, petitions etc. are filed without the clearance of the High Power Committee, so as to save limitation, the appellant or the petitioner as the case may be, shall within a month from such filing, refer the matter to the High Power Committee with prior notice to the Designated Authority in Cabinet Secretariat of Government of India authorised to receive notices in that behalf.
The High Power Committee shall submit a half yearly report--- instead of quarterly report as earlier indicated---to this Court as to the number of matters referred to it and the manner in which they were dealt with and disposed of
-
1994 (1) TMI 87
Whether a Magistrate before whom a person arrested under sub-section (1) of Section 35 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act of 1973 which is in pari materia with sub-section (1) of Section 104 of the Customs Act of 1962, is produced under sub-section (2) of Section 35 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, has jurisdiction to authorise detention of that person under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
Held that:- .There is a series of decisions of various High Courts, of course with some exception, taking the view that a Magistrate before whom a person arrested by the competent authority under the FERA or Customs Act is produced, can authorise detention in exercise of his powers under Section 167. Otherwise the mandatory direction under the provision of Section 35(2) of FERA or 104(2) of the Customs Act, to take every person arrested before the Magistrate without unnecessary delay when the arrestee was not released on bail under sub-section (3) of those special Acts, will become purposeless and meaningless and to say that the Courts even in the event of refusal of bail have no choice but to set the person arrested at liberty by folding their hands as a helpless spectator in the face of what is termed as 'legislative causes omissus' or legal flaw or lacuna, it will become utterly illogical and absurd.
Thus Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 167 are squarely applicable with regard to the production and detention of a person arrested under the provisions of Section 35 of FERA and 104 of Customs Act and that the Magistrate has jurisdiction under Section 167(2) to authorise detention of a person arrested by any authorised officer of the Enforcement under FERA and taken to the Magistrate in compliance of Section 35(2) of FERA.
-
1994 (1) TMI 86
Whether the respondent's product, "Handyplast", is a `patent or proprietary medicine' within the meaning of T.I. 14E of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Act as it obtained at the relevant time/
Held that:- Even though we are not satisfied with the reasoning of the High Court, we are of the opinion that no interference is called for in the particular facts and circumstances of the case. The relevant facts relating to the dispute concerned herein have been stated in the opening paragraphs of the Judgment of the High Court, which establish that the proviso to Section 11A may not be attracted to this case. The High Court has traced the course of this litigation and the inordinate delays in deciding the matter. The Respondent has been paying duty all the while under T.I. 68 till the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 came into force. The difference of duty is very small. Having regard to all the above facts, we do not think this is a fit case for interfering under Article 136 of the Constitution. Appeal dismissed.
-
1994 (1) TMI 85
Whether the mixed fertilisers manufactured and sold by the appellant under the trade-name, Vijay (N.P.K. 17-17-17) is entitled to the benefit of the said Notification No. 25/70
Held that:- It is not for us to say whether the mixture of fertilisers concerned in Coromandal Fertilisers is similar to the mixture manufactured by the appellant. It is sufficient to say that the mixture manufactured by the appellant does not satisfy all the conditions prescribed by the relevant Notification and that unless all the conditions are satisfied, the benefit does not flow. It was also admitted before us by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Explanation appended to the exemption Notification is not relevant herein. Appeals dismissed.
-
1994 (1) TMI 84
Issues:
- Interpretation of Income-tax Act provisions regarding filing of successive returns under section 139(4)
- Validity of assessment based on second return filed by the assessee
- Comparison of decisions in Eapen Joseph v. CIT and CIT v. Dr. N. Shrivastava
- Determination of whether the Tribunal's decision on the second return filing is correct
Analysis:
The High Court of Kerala was tasked with interpreting the Income-tax Act provisions concerning the filing of successive returns under section 139(4). The case revolved around the validity of an assessment based on the second return filed by the assessee. The court examined the conflicting decisions in Eapen Joseph v. CIT and CIT v. Dr. N. Shrivastava to determine the correct legal position. The central issue was whether the second return could be considered valid under section 139(4) for assessment purposes.
In the case at hand, the assessee failed to file a return under section 139(1) for the relevant accounting year. Despite receiving a notice under section 139(2) to file the return, the assessee did not comply. Subsequently, the assessee filed a return on two occasions: first on July 17, 1980, and then on November 17, 1980. The Income-tax Officer refused to consider the second return and completed the assessment based on the first return. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) directed the Income-tax Officer to assess based on the second return, leading to appeals and subsequent Tribunal decisions.
The court referenced the decision in Eapen Joseph v. CIT, which held that any return filed subsequent to the original one under section 139(4) had no legal consequence. The court also considered the conflicting view in CIT v. Dr. N. Shrivastava but ultimately upheld the position in Eapen Joseph. The court emphasized that the statute expressly allowed revised returns only for those filing under section 139(1) or (2), not under section 139(4). As the assessee did not file under section 139(1) or (2) initially, the court concluded that the second return could not be the basis for assessment.
Consequently, the court ruled against the assessee, holding that the Tribunal erred in considering the second return as valid under section 139(4) for assessment purposes. The judgment favored the Revenue and rejected the assessee's claim. The court dismissed the misconceived application and directed the Tribunal to receive a copy of the judgment for compliance with legal requirements.
-
1994 (1) TMI 83
Issues:
1. Validity of rectification order under section 13 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964.
2. Deductibility of deposit made with the Industrial Development Bank of India for computing chargeable profits under the Surtax Act.
Analysis:
The High Court of Gujarat addressed the first issue concerning the validity of a rectification order under section 13 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964. The case involved an assessee-company that was assessed for the year 1977-78, where chargeable profits were initially computed with a deduction for income tax but without reducing the deposit made with the Industrial Development Bank of India. Subsequently, a rectification order was passed withdrawing the earlier deduction allowed for the deposit amount. The assessee challenged this order, arguing that the deposit should be treated as payment of surtax and hence deductible. The court examined the relevant provisions and held that the deposit made did not equate to payment of surcharge on income tax, as the liability for surcharge was eliminated by making the deposit. Therefore, the court upheld the rectification order, concluding that the deposit was not deductible for computing chargeable profits under the Surtax Act.
Moving on to the second issue, the court delved into the interpretation of the Finance Act, 1976, which provided for relief in surcharge payments through deposits with the Industrial Development Bank of India. The court analyzed the provisions and emphasized that the deposit made did not constitute actual payment of surcharge on income tax, as the liability to pay surcharge was extinguished upon making the deposit. Drawing from a similar decision by the Karnataka High Court, the Gujarat High Court affirmed that such deposits were not deductible for computing chargeable profits. The court reasoned that the relief provided in the Finance Act indicated that the surcharge amount for which relief was granted could not be considered as income tax payable by the company. Consequently, the court concurred with the Tribunal's decision, holding that the deposit made in lieu of surcharge on income tax was not deductible for computing chargeable profits under the Surtax Act.
In conclusion, the High Court answered both questions in the affirmative, favoring the Revenue and ruling against the assessee. The court found no room for debate on the matter, asserting that the view adopted in the judgment was the only logical and plausible one. As a result, the reference was disposed of with no costs awarded.
-
1994 (1) TMI 82
Issues:
The judgment involves the question of whether depreciation can be allowed on plant and machinery that were under lock-out and not used during the relevant previous year for the business of the assessee company.
Summary:
The High Court of Calcutta considered a reference made by the Revenue regarding the allowance of depreciation on assets at the Barakar Unit of an assessee company, which was under lock-out throughout the relevant previous years for the assessment years 1983-84 and 1984-85. The Assessing Officer disallowed the depreciation claim as the assets were not used during the lock-out period. However, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal allowed the depreciation based on precedents like Capital Bus Service (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1980] 123 ITR 404.
The court analyzed Section 32(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which requires that plant and machinery must be owned and used for the business to claim depreciation. The key issue was whether assets not actively used due to lock-out could still be considered used for business purposes. Precedents like Capital Bus Service (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1980] 123 ITR 404 were cited to support the argument that passive use, such as keeping machinery ready for operation, could constitute usage for business purposes.
The court distinguished cases like Liquidators of Pursa Ltd. v. CIT [1954] 25 ITR 265 and CIT v. Vayithri Plantations Ltd. [1981] 128 ITR 675, where passive usage was allowed for depreciation claims. It noted that in the present case, the entire factory remained under lock-out, and none of the assets were used during the relevant previous years. The court emphasized that actual usage for business purposes is a prerequisite for claiming depreciation under Section 32(1).
Ultimately, the court held that since the plant and machinery were not actually used for business purposes during the lock-out period, no depreciation could be allowed under Section 32(1). The question was answered in the negative, in favor of the Revenue.
This judgment highlights the importance of actual usage of assets for business purposes in claiming depreciation under the Income-tax Act, 1961.
-
1994 (1) TMI 81
Issues:
1. Challenge to order of learned Magistrate dismissing discharge prayer due to delay in filing proceedings.
2. Violation of right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.
3. Alleged violation of principles of natural justice by the Department.
4. Imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(a) and institution of criminal proceedings under section 276CC.
Analysis:
1. The applicants challenged the order of the learned Magistrate, contending that the criminal proceedings against them, initiated after a significant delay, should result in their discharge. The applicants argued that the delay of almost ten years in filing the proceedings violated their right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. They emphasized that the Department was aware of their alleged offense well before lodging the complaint, as evidenced by the penalty imposed earlier. The delay in instituting criminal proceedings under section 276CC, distinct from the penalty under section 271(1)(a), was deemed unjustified by the applicants.
2. The applicants' counsel asserted that the Department's failure to issue a show-cause notice before lodging the prosecution violated the principles of natural justice. Reference was made to the requirement under section 279 of the Act for the Commissioner to consider various options, including compounding offenses, before initiating proceedings. The counsel highlighted the need for the Department to afford the applicants an opportunity to present their case and potentially explore alternative options before resorting to criminal proceedings.
3. In response, the Department's counsel argued that the imposition of penalty was preceded by a show-cause notice under section 274 of the Act. The Department contended that the penalty order, subsequent appeals, and rejection of those appeals provided sufficient grounds for the Commissioner to conclude that the applicants willfully failed to comply, justifying the prosecution under section 276CC. However, the court found the Department's argument unconvincing due to the distinct provisions governing the penalty and criminal proceedings.
4. The court, while acknowledging the Department's arguments, held that the Commissioner should have provided the applicants with a fresh opportunity to be heard before initiating criminal proceedings under section 276CC. The court emphasized the importance of fairness and due process, especially considering the significant delay between the offense and the institution of criminal proceedings. Consequently, the court allowed the petition, quashed the proceedings before the Magistrate, and directed the Commissioner to consider fresh proceedings only after affording the applicants an opportunity to be heard and issuing a show-cause notice.
-
1994 (1) TMI 80
The court ruled that in a reassessment under section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act, the ingredients of that section must be satisfied, even if it is made to give effect to a finding or direction in an order under section 250. The Appellate Tribunal held that the assessment could not be sustained as there was no failure to disclose material facts by the assessee. The court answered the question in the affirmative, against the Revenue, with costs of Rs. 500.
-
1994 (1) TMI 79
The High Court of Madras declined to answer the questions referred by the Appellate Tribunal regarding the correctness of the deletion of Rs. 54,996 in the assessment year 1965-66. The court held that the assessment of income on an accrual basis does not lead to double taxation, even if the method of assessment has changed from receipt basis in earlier years.
-
1994 (1) TMI 78
Issues:
Prosecution for filing false returns based on disputed claim of revenue expenditure.
Interplay between assessment proceedings, penalty proceedings, and criminal prosecution in tax matters.
Analysis:
The judgment involves the quashing of criminal proceedings against multiple accused (A-1, A-2, A-4 to A-8) initiated by a Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax for offenses under sections 276C and 277 read with section 278B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The accused filed a petition seeking to quash the proceedings, arguing that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal had accepted their explanation regarding a disputed claim of revenue expenditure amounting to Rs. 9,98,200. The crux of the complaint was that the accused submitted false returns based on this claim, which was later found to be baseless during assessment proceedings.
The main contention raised by the accused was that since the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal had accepted their explanation and quashed the penalty imposed, the criminal court could not convict them for filing false returns. The standing counsel for the Revenue, however, argued that despite the Tribunal's decision in penalty proceedings, the assessment had become final, allowing the prosecution to proceed. The accused cited precedents, such as the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Parkash Chand v. ITO, where prosecution proceedings were quashed based on the Tribunal's findings in penalty proceedings.
The judge agreed with the accused, emphasizing that in quasi-criminal penalty proceedings, the burden on the Department is not as stringent as in full-fledged criminal proceedings. Given the annulment of the penalty proceedings and the acceptance of the accused's explanation, the judge concluded that there was no reasonable prospect of a conviction in the criminal case. Therefore, continuing the prosecution would only waste the time of the criminal court. Consequently, the judge quashed the proceedings initiated by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, thereby disposing of the criminal miscellaneous case in favor of the accused.
-
1994 (1) TMI 77
Issues:
1. Whether the assessment for the assessment year 1979-80 was barred by limitation?
2. Whether a draft order made within the period of limitation should be forwarded to the assessee within the same period for a valid assessment?
3. Whether annulling the order of assessment for the assessment year 1979-80 was legally justified?
Analysis:
The case involved a partnership firm that filed returns for the assessment year 1979-80, which were disputed by the Income-tax Officer. The Officer concluded that the income of the firm should be part of another entity's total income. A draft assessment order was made on March 16, 1982, but it was forwarded to the assessee on April 8, 1982. The issue arose whether this delay in forwarding the draft order rendered the assessment barred by limitation. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that since the draft order was made within the financial year 1981-82, the assessment was not time-barred. However, the Tribunal disagreed, noting that the actual forwarding of the draft order was on April 8, 1982, after the limitation period had expired. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of the term "forward" in the context of transmission, stating that the mere direction to forward without actual transmission did not meet the statutory requirements.
The Revenue contended that the draft order was prepared on March 16, 1982, with a direction to forward it to the assessee, and the actual act of forwarding on April 8, 1982, was within the stipulated period. The Tribunal's decision was based on the interpretation of the term "forward" in the relevant provisions. The Court agreed with the Tribunal, emphasizing that the actual act of forwarding the draft order was essential for compliance with the statutory requirements. Merely making a direction without the physical act of transmission did not constitute forwarding as mandated by the law. The purpose of providing the assessee an opportunity to respond to the proposed assessment required the actual transmission of the draft order.
The Court's analysis focused on the legislative intent behind the provisions of section 144B and Explanation 1 of section 153, highlighting the significance of the term "forward" in the context of transmitting the draft order to the assessee. The judgment concluded that the delay in forwarding the draft order rendered the assessment barred by limitation. Therefore, the Court answered the first question in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue. Consequently, the second and third questions were also answered in favor of the assessee based on the same reasoning. The reference application was disposed of with no costs, and both judges concurred with the decision.
-
1994 (1) TMI 76
The High Court of Madras ruled that two firms with the same partners and different profit-sharing ratios must be treated as one partnership for assessment purposes. The court found that funds from the cloth business were used to construct a theatre, leading to a conclusion that the firms were not independent. The decision was based on the Supreme Court's guidelines on partnerships. The question was answered against the assessee with costs of Rs. 500.
-
1994 (1) TMI 75
Issues Involved:
The issue involves determining whether a residential property owned by an assessee-company, used by directors for residence, should be treated as used for business purposes under section 22 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, thereby exempting it from assessment under the head 'Property' for the assessment year 1971-72.
Judgment Details:
The High Court of Madras, in the case at hand, addressed the question of whether the property in question, situated at 1-C, Nungambakkam High Road, Madras, and utilized by the directors of the assessee-company for residential purposes, should be considered as being used for business within the scope of section 22 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Appellate Tribunal had ruled that the property's use for directors' residence falls under business use, hence exempting the notional income from assessment under section 22. The Revenue contended that such use should not be considered, and the income from the property should be assessed as "income from the house property" due to the company's ownership.
The Court noted a similar case where the Andhra Pradesh High Court rejected a comparable contention in CIT v. Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd. [1988] 173 ITR 290. It was established that when a company provides a house for its director's residence, it does so as part of its business activities. The principle applied is that if a property owner conducts business using their property, the income from that property should be treated as business income. In this instance, since the Appellate Tribunal determined that the house property was used by the company as part of its business operations, the income from the property could not be separately assessed as house property income but should be included in the total income of the assessee. Consequently, the Court answered the question in the affirmative, against the Revenue's position, with no costs awarded.
-
1994 (1) TMI 74
The High Court of Madras ruled that pension received by the assessee from the United Nations Organisation is exempt from tax for the assessment years 1976-77 and 1977-78, based on Board's Circular No. 293 dated February 10, 1981. The decision was in line with the Karnataka High Court's ruling in CIT v. K. Ramaiah [1980] 126 ITR 638.
-
1994 (1) TMI 73
The High Court of Madras ruled in favor of the assessee, allowing a deduction of Rs. 1,12,178 for educational expenses for the assessee's children under section 5(1)(xii) of the Gift-tax Act. The court disagreed with the Revenue's argument that education should be limited to higher or specialized education, stating that any normal educational expenses incurred by a parent should also be considered. The court found that the amount set apart for education was not a gift but rather an obligation of the parent. The court distinguished this case from a previous Bombay High Court decision and upheld the Appellate Tribunal's decision based on the relevant facts considered.
-
1994 (1) TMI 72
Issues:
- Interpretation of section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 regarding assessment order being prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue.
- Application of section 80P(2)(a)(iv) of the Income-tax Act in allowing deductions for a co-operative society engaged in specific activities.
- Determination of net income for deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(iv) based on relevant expenditure incurred.
Analysis:
The High Court of GUJARAT addressed the issues raised by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the correctness of the assessment order under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The case involved a co-operative society providing services to members and non-members, primarily dealing with agricultural products. The Commissioner of Income-tax found errors in the assessment made by the Income-tax Officer, specifically related to excess deductions claimed under section 80P(2)(a)(iv) of the Act. The Commissioner held that the Income-tax Officer failed to consider relevant expenditure, leading to an incorrect assessment. Consequently, the assessment orders were set aside under section 263, directing the Income-tax Officer to recalculate profits and gains considering proportionate expenditure.
The Court delved into the provisions of section 80P(1) and (2)(a)(iv) to determine the eligibility of the co-operative society for deductions. It highlighted that deductions should be based on net profits and gains, not gross profits, as per the legislative scheme. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, emphasizing the importance of considering relevant expenditure in determining deductions under section 80P(2)(a)(iv). The Court referenced previous judgments, including CIT v. Sabarkantha Zilla Kharid Vechan Sangh Ltd., to support its interpretation of the legislative intent behind such deductions.
By analyzing the legal precedents and the specific provisions of the Income-tax Act, the Court concluded that deductions under section 80P(2)(a)(iv) should be calculated based on net income attributable to the specified activities. The Court provided a detailed illustration to clarify the calculation method for deductions in scenarios involving different types of income and corresponding expenditure. Ultimately, the Court answered the questions in favor of the Revenue, affirming the importance of considering net income for deductions under section 80P(2)(a)(iv).
In conclusion, the High Court's judgment clarified the correct interpretation of section 80P(2)(a)(iv) of the Income-tax Act, emphasizing the significance of considering relevant expenditure to determine net income for deductions. The decision reaffirmed the legislative intent behind such provisions and provided guidance on calculating deductions for co-operative societies engaged in specific activities, ultimately ruling in favor of the Revenue in this case.
-
1994 (1) TMI 71
Issues Involved:
The judgment involves the interpretation of provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 regarding the annual value of a property under section 23(1) and the determination of gross annual letting value.
Issue 1:
The Tribunal's conclusion on the applicability of section 5(1) read with section 11(1)(d) of the Rent Act to the assessee's case was challenged. The property in question, a bungalow, was gifted to a family trust and subsequently let out at a nominal rent. The Income-tax Officer fixed the annual value at Rs. 18,000 based on various factors including the capital value of the property and the proximity to the date of the gift deed. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner upheld this valuation, considering the property's capital value and the nominal rent. The Tribunal concurred with the lower authorities, finding the annual value reasonable based on the property's value and interest calculations.
Issue 2:
The correctness of the computation of the gross annual letting value at Rs. 18,000 per annum was questioned. The Income-tax Officer considered factors such as the property's location, built-up area, plot size, and valuation by an approved valuer to arrive at this figure. The Tribunal affirmed this valuation, noting the property's physical condition and relevant factors affecting rental value. The Tribunal's computation aligned with the Income-tax Officer's assessment, indicating a correct determination of the property's annual value.
Issue 3:
The Tribunal's finding that the agreed rent of Rs. 500 per month was nominal and not the standard rent under the Rent Act was disputed. The Tribunal considered the rent in relation to the property's value and the expected market rent. Factors affecting rental values were acknowledged, and the Tribunal's percentage return on the property's value was deemed fair. The authorities valued the property based on its physical condition and relevant factors, leading to the conclusion that the rent was nominal. The Tribunal's valuation of Rs. 18,000 as the annual value was upheld as correct based on the approved valuer's report and other considerations.
In conclusion, the High Court answered the questions in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee, affirming the correctness of the authorities' determination of the property's annual value.
-
1994 (1) TMI 70
Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of Commissioner of Income-tax under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Exclusion of amount for capital employed under rule 19A of the Income-tax Rules for deduction under section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1: Jurisdiction of Commissioner of Income-tax under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
The case involved a dispute regarding the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Income-tax to revise an order under section 263 of the Income-tax Act. The Commissioner sought to recomputed the relief granted under section 80J of the Act, arguing that the relief was wrongly allowed without proper assessment. The assessee contended that the Commissioner had no jurisdiction to interfere with the order of the Income-tax Officer after it had merged into the appellate orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal. The Commissioner disagreed and set aside the assessment, directing a de novo assessment. The Tribunal held that once an issue had been decided by the appellate authorities, the Commissioner had no jurisdiction under section 263 to revise the assessment. The Tribunal referred to various High Court decisions supporting the view that once capital is utilized for acquiring assets for a business, it remains employed in the business, regardless of whether the asset is actually used in the business. The Tribunal concluded that the Commissioner had no jurisdiction to revise the assessment already framed.
Issue 2: Exclusion of amount for capital employed under rule 19A of the Income-tax Rules for deduction under section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
The second issue revolved around whether the value of assets under installation or work-in-progress should be included in the capital employed for the purpose of deduction under section 80J of the Act. The Tribunal, supported by various High Court decisions, held that the value of assets in question should not be excluded for computing the capital employed under rule 19A for the purposes of the deduction under section 80J of the Act. The Tribunal found no compelling reason to depart from the consistent view taken by the High Courts on this matter. The Tribunal endorsed the view that the actual use or non-use of the acquired asset is not material for computing the relief under section 80J of the Act.
In conclusion, the High Court answered question No. 1 in the negative, in favor of the Revenue, and against the assessee. Question No. 2 was answered in the affirmative, in favor of the assessee, and against the Revenue. The court did not award any costs in this matter, leaving the detailed examination of the issue for future cases.
....
|
9911796707
