9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (11) TMI 73X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... three at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax and remaining two at the instance of the assessee under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for opinion to this court: "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) directing the Income-tax Officer to allow investment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... years which had already been held to be allowable in the respective earlier years? 5. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the assessee-company was not entitled to relief under section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961?" At the outset it may be mentioned here that nobody has appeared on behalf of the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lowed the payment of interest to depositors in excess of 15 per cent, per year under the Companies Deposit Rules. However, in appeal the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has allowed the claim of investment allowance under section 32A and section 80J of the Act. However, he also upheld the order regarding the disallowance of interest in respect of the prescribed limit of 15 per cent, under the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the apex court in the case of CIT v. N.C. Budharaja and Co. [1993] 204 ITR 412 the activity of construction of dam does not amount to manufacture or production of an article and, therefore, the firm is not entitled for investment allowance. In this view of the matter, the Tribunal has committed error in holding that the firm is entitled for investment allowance under section 32A of the Act. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
