9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (12) TMI 323X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee under s. 256 (1) of the IT Act, the asessee prayed that the following questions may be framed and the matter may be referred to the High Court for determination on the points of law : 1. Whether the learned Tribunal was right in law in holding that a sum of ₹ 2,35,491.17 being expenses for levelling and adjustment of iron ore incurred by the assessee and debited by the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t., 1981 between Orissa Minerals Development Company Ltd. (Now a Government Undertaking) and the assessee firm? 4. Whether, the order of the learned Tribunal is not perverse and is not vitiated for arriving at wrong findings? 5. Whether, the learned Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee firm is entitled to deduction under s. 35E 1/10th of the expenses of 4,14,541.00 ? 2. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the petitioner, s. 37 of the Act applies. 5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is performing the job of excavating, sizing, sorting of ore. Thus, the petitioner assessee purchases iron ore and transports the same at the railway side. Sec. 35E (1) of the IT Act provides that the person who is engaged in any operation relating to prospecting, extraction or production of any mineral, falls ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unt of the other persons. We are of the view that s. 35E of the Act applies. 7. We will also like to refer to s. 37 of the IT Act. This section excludes all types of expenditures which fall within the purview of ss. 30 to 36 of the Act. Thus s. 37 also does not apply. If any expenditure falls within both the sections then s. 35E will apply. We are of the view that Tribunal has rightly rejected ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
