9911796707
TMI Blog1982 (9) TMI 179X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion to the ITO to examine whether the conditions of s. 35C r/w r. 6A(2) were satisfied. The ITO made fresh assessment for 1973-74 and original assessments for 1974-75 & 1975-76. He held that some of the expenses were not eligible for relief under s. 35C. Assessee's claim for all years in dispute before us in respect of these expenses was as under: Head of expenditure. Assessment years . 1973-74 1974-75 1975-76 1976-77 1977-78 . Rs. Rs. Rs. Rs. Rs. (1) Crop. Production exp. 90,266 2,03,778 1,76,191 1,83,080 76,784 (2) Administrative exp. (50%) 54,230 79,448 1,27,710 1,17,311 69,261 (3) Demonstration exps. 5,872 3,665 -- -- -- (4) Godown exps. 5,414 7,988 4,057 11,213 14,481 (5) Processing exps. 3,07,60 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s entitled to weighted deduction under s. 35C in respect of the said expenditure." In consequence of these directions, the ITO made fresh assessments for the three years wherein he again rejected the assessee's claim for allowance under s. 35C in respect of the processing expenditure and 50 per cent in respect of the crop production expenses. Likewise, for the remaining two assessment years, he has rejected the assessee's claim in entirety for weighted deduction in respect of processing expenses. The CIT (A), however, allowed the same. Revenue is, therefore, in appeal against the orders of the CIT (A) challenging the allowance under s. 35C in respect of processing expenses for all the five years, inspection fees for the first three years a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rounds broadly. The subject matter on an appeal should be understood not in a narrow and unrealistic manner but should be so comprehended as to encompass the entire controversy between the parties which is sought to be got adjudicated upon by the Tribunal. Alternatively, it was the case of the ld. Deptl. Rep. That atleast the items in respect of which revenue was in appeal have been described at length in the previous order of the Tribunal and also from the relevant materials which has been placed before us it is shown that they are not covered by the provisions of s. 35C of the IT Act. On behalf of the assessee, a serious objection is taken to the plea on behalf of the Revenue that the assessee was not eligible for allowance under s. 35C a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irst three years, the ITO has himself considered the assessee to be eligible for relief under s. 35C in respect of some of the expenses, such as crop production expenses, administrative expenses, godown expenses, etc. Even the CIT (A) and the Tribunal have considered the assessee eligible for relief under s. 35C in respect of the activities carried on by it. Therefore, in our opinion, it is too late in the day for the Revenue to take up the question whether relief under s. 35C was admissible to the assessee at all. We shall confine ourselves to the admissibility of relief under s. 35C in respect of these two items, whether they are eligible for relief within the scheme of s. 35C at all. From the details of the processing expenses, as furnis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
