9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (3) TMI 68X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act"), seeking direction to the Tribunal to state the case and to refer the under-noted questions, categorised as of law, arising out of the order dated May 8, 1991, passed by the Tribunal in I. T. A. No. 363/Ind of 1986 after rejection of the application on February 7, 1992, registered as R. A. No. 423/Ind of 1991, for the assessmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sh the year in which the debts had become bad ? (5) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the charging of interest under section 217 on ITNS-150 and inclusion thereof in the demand notice are not conclusive evidence in support of charging of interest directed in the assessment order when these documents are part of the assessment order under section 143(3) and whether the I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... consultancy charges of Rs. 30,722, incurred allegedly by it for preparation of techno economic feasibility in connection with the expansion of the company. The Assessing Officer disallowed this claim also and held it to be a capital expenditure. The Assessing Officer also disallowed the claim of bad debt. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ian Oxygen Ltd. v. CIT [1987] 164 ITR 466 (Cal) which in turn had considered as many as 16 cases of various High Courts and two decisions of the apex court. As regards questions Nos. 3 and 4, the Tribunal held on examination of the facts that certain bad debts, as claimed by the assessee, were allowable in the year in question and the finding was based on appreciation of facts. As regards question ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th the correctness of the orders rendered by the Tribunal and hold that the present application filed by the applicant under section 256(2) of the Act is meritless and does not make out any case for a direction to state a case. In the circumstances, we dismiss this application as devoid of merit but with no order as to costs. Counsel fee for each side is, however, fixed at Rs. 750, if certifie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
