Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1998 (1) TMI 69

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for referring the aforesaid question for the opinion of this court. The Tribunal by its order dated February 24, 1997, held that since the matter was squarely covered by the decision of this court in Lakhanpal National Ltd. v. ITO [1986] 162 ITR 240, no question of law arose from its order for seeking the opinion of the High Court, which had already decided the question. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant-Revenue contended that when there existed a question law in the matter, the High Court, on the authority of the Supreme Court in D. B. Madan v. CIT [1991] 192 ITR 344, should call for the statement of case on such question of law for its consideration notwit .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... y indirect advantage that may be secured as a result of the expenditure. It was therefore held that the Tribunal was in error in holding that the expenditure was laid out wholly and exclusively for business purposes. Following that earlier decision, the High Court in D. B. Madan's case, refused to consider the question to the effect as to whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the expenditure on the air travel of the assessee's wife was not incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business of the assessee and that the benefit derived by the wife would detract from the exclusiveness of the outlay, so as to render it ineligible as a deductible expenditure. In this background, the Supreme Court held that, it was alway .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . The question already decided on a reference may have depended upon considerations which may vary from year to year, or a case may have been decided mainly with reference to the question of onus of proof. In the case which was before the Supreme Court, it will be noted that the earlier decision of the Madras High Court in Hajee Moosa's case, [1985] 153 ITR 422, was rendered in the context of the expenditure incurred by a partner over taking his spouse on a foreign tour and it was observed that even assuming that the expenditure related to business purposes, it had a dual or twin purpose and it did not only serve purposes of business. The Supreme Court, in view of the fact that the High Court in D. B. Madan's case, had simply relied upon .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... or its decision. In cases where the answer to the question of law is self-evident or where the question is of an academic nature, e.g., where it is concluded by a judgment of the Supreme Court or of the very High Court to which the reference is sought, the High Court in exercise of its discretion under sub-section (2) of section 256 would be justified in refusing to require the Tribunal to refer such a question. When a decision on a question of law is rendered by the High Court, it will remain a binding precedent, on the doctrine of "stare decisis" and when an identical question of law is involved in a subsequent matter the Tribunal would be bound to follow the decision of its jurisdictional High Court and it cannot be said that a question .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of Lakhanpal's case [1986] 162 ITR 240 (Guj), required to be reconsidered. In Lakhanpal's case, [1986] 162 ITR 240, in the context of the provisions of section 43B of the Act, it was held that the import duty and excise duty which were paid by the assessee were deductible and that the sum payable under clause (a) of section 43B had not been claimed by way of deduction in any previous year prior to 1983. It was held that the liability to pay the duties accrued in 1983 and the duties were actually paid in that year and, therefore, the amounts paid were deductible under section 43B of the Act. Section 43B(a), inter alia, provides that notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of the Act, a deduction otherwise allowable under th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates