9911796707
TMI Blog1979 (5) TMI 66X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have been raised in this appeal and both relate to the computation of relief under s. 80J. The first contention is that the capital employed in the business should be computed by ignoring the provisions of r. 19A(3), following the decision in the case of Madras Industrial Linings Ltd.(1). Following that decision it is claimed that capital employed should be taken as Rs. 51,02,216 and not as Rs. 4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to 4. When sub-r. 3 is struck down, it would in effect mean that the entire rules should be taken to have been struck down as Ultra vires. The result is that the prescribed manner is not now available and if so there is no means of giving any relief to the assessee. For this proposition he relied on a decision of the Bombay Bench of the Tribunal in ITA No. 3255 Bom/76-77 dt. 17th June, 1978 where ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The learned counsel on the other hand submitted that the result of the decision in 110 ITR 256 is not that the entire rules are made Ultra vires but only that s. 19A (3) should not be applied. In such a contingency the arguments advanced by the Departmental Representative has no force. The other part of the rules is there and the ITO has to compute it accordingly. 5. Having considered the matte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng considered the matter, we are of the opinion that since the assessee has raised this ground before the AAC and since he has failed to deal with it, it can be taken that he has held against the assessee. In this view of the matter it would be open to the assessee to canvass the same ground again before the Tribunal. We have not been able to trace the case referred to by the view that the words " ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
