9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (1) TMI 938X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y been shown as part-heard. In fact ITR No.285/1987 was heard in part. In view of this, we now take up ITR No.286/1987 for consideration. The first question that has been referred to us at the instance of the Revenue reads as follows:- 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is correct in law and on facts in confirming the order of the Comm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... argued and decided. The third question read as follows:- 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that the excise duty liability of ₹ 4,63,511/- was allowable as a deduction in computing the Assessee's income? Learned counsel for the parties agree that this question is required to be answered in the affirm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal had erred in holding that the Assessee is entitled to weighted deduction u/s. 35B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on travelling expenses on foreign tour in connection with Kenya Project? Learned counsel for the parties say that this question has to be argued and decided. The sixth question that has been referred to us at the instance of the Revenue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acts in directing the Income Tax Officer to allow depreciation on SSF and Tyrecord units @ 15% as against 10% allowed by the Income Tax Officer? We find that the amount involved in this question is negligible and under these circumstances, we return the reference unanswered in so far as this question is concerned. In so far as question No.2 is concerned, our attention has been drawn to [1990] 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this regard to contend that the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) setting aside the assessment order does not suffer from any mistake or infirmity. In addition to this, we find that the amount in dispute is ₹ 94,273/- and only 1/3rd of this is to be considered for the purposes of weighted deduction under Section 35B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The tax effect on this a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
