1986 (10) TMI 327

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 61 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) praying for a direction to the Tribunal to draw a statement of the case, and to refer the following question of law. : 1. Whether the ld. Tribunal was correct in law in not allowing deduction of ₹ 20,000 being payment made to Ayodhya Kumari Sah for the furniture in Roop Mahal under s. 48(ii) of the IT Act, 1961, while computing capital gain in .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t in law in not allowing salary expenses of ₹ 2,334 and general expenses of ₹ 500 from the business income of the assessee? 7. Whether the ld. Tribunal had material to hold that there was no evidence on record to show that the expenses of ₹ 2,834 were incurred for business purpose ? 8. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances and in view of the material on re .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e relief for ₹ 550 out of expenditure on legal fee but did not allow other reliefs. On further appeal, the Tribunal rejected the contentions of the petitioner and dismissed the appeal., The petitioner preferred an application for reference under s. 256(1) of the Act, before the Tribunal for referring the above questions. The learned Tribunal made out a draft statement of the case on 16th Sep .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X