2001 (3) TMI 70

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nue, the following question has been referred for the opinion of this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench-E (in short "the Tribunal"), under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act"): "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in holding that the assessee was entitled to relief under section 80J when he .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t case, the assessee had employed less than ten workers for the first three months for the calendar year, but it employed more than ten workers for the remaining nine months. The assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (in short "the CIT(A)") questioning the correctness of the conclusions arrived at by the Assessing Officer. The said authority held that there w .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... riod of the assessment year in question, the asses see has complied with the requirement of employing more than ten workers, the benefit has to be granted. It has to be noted that on the last date of the assessment year, the requisite number was there in the present case in addition to the fact that for a substantial period of the year that was the position. Substantial compliance was all that was .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X