9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (5) TMI 655X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eduction on account of guarantee commission, paid by the assessee to its directors and relatives, as decided by the learned authorities below, does not give rise to any substantial question of law, and the appeals had been admitted only on the question, as to whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal is justified in allowing the claim of the assessee, on a very broadly stated principle, that to claim deduction under section 35(1)(iv) in respect of capital expenditure incurred on R & D of assessee's business, it is enough that the expenditure is incurred on purchase of plant and machinery to be used in R&D, without holding any enquiry into the question, as to whether such machines acquired for the purpose of R&D, at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n a decision of Supreme Court in Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [1967] 43 ITR 57 (SC), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held, that so far final conclusion of the admissibility of an allowance is concerned, the same is a question of law. 2. It may be observed that we sent for 43 ITR, and find that the volume is not relating to 1967, but it relates to 1961, and therein there is no judgment like Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. L td. vs. CIT. However with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, we could lay hands on the judgment in CIT vs. Swadeshi Cotton & Flour Mills (P) Ltd. [1964] 53 ITR 134 (SC), but then that judgment again is on an altogether different aspect, about admissibility of bonus and commission paid to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hors the technicalities, even on merits, in view of the judgment of this Court in Ayurvedic Sevashram's case (supra ), the finding on this question requires no interference by this Court. 5. Then we come to the question as framed in Appeal Nos. 51, 52 of 2005, 25, 38 and 40 of 2007, being on the anvil of section 35(1)(iv). On reading the question, it appears, that the question proceeds with presupposition, that the deduction has been allowed without holding any enquiry into the question as to whether such machines, acquired for the purpose of R&D, at any time were to put to use for R&D, or development of the business of the assessee. As against this, what we find is, that the orders are based on the basis of orders passed in earlier ye ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
