9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (9) TMI 61X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the deletion of Rs. 15,444 on purchase tax liability and Rs. 47,624 as provision for sales tax ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the deletion of Rs. 1,08,281 representing unpaid wages and bonus for the accounting year 1974-75 written back to the profit and loss account for the relevant assessment year ? 4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that for the purpose of allowing depreciation, the payment of 1,75,000 dollars to the Union Carbide International Co. Ltd., of U. S. A. should be taken as part of the cos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mount in the subsequent assessment years and as such there was no tax liability on the assessee and as such the assessee cannot be allowed to claim deduction. Under such circumstances, the Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction as claimed by the assessee. On appeal the view taken by the Assessing Officer was set aside and the claim of deduction by the assessee was upheld. The Revenue took the matter to the Income-tax Tribunal in appeal but the Tribunal rejected the appeal. The Revenue thereafter got the matter referred to this court for opinion and that is how the matter has come up before us. Since questions Nos. 1 and 2 are overlapping, we take up and answer these two questions together. On a perusal of the order of the Tribunal a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . So far as question No. 3 is concerned, it is conceded that this question stands concluded by the decision in the case of CIT v. General Industrial Society Ltd. [1994] 207 ITR 169 (Cal), and in the case of CIT v. Eastern Spinning Mills and Industries Ltd. [1994] 207 ITR 951 (Cal). We are in respectful agreement with the view taken by this court in the two cases referred to above. In view of these two decisions, we answer the question in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. So far as question No. 4 is concerned, it is admitted between the parties that this question stands concluded by a decision in the case of CIT v. Jiajee Rao Cotton Mills Ltd. (Income-tax Reference No. 44 of 1992), decided by this court on August 3, 1993. In thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
