9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 617X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the labour unions and, therefore, in the given facts and circumstances and to maintain industrial harmony and peace, the assessee company made a provision. The revenue may term it as contingent in nature. However, we do not find that the reasons assigned by the Tribunal in that regard raise any substantial question of law. Remission of advance liability - treated as capital receipt - whether the remission of a sum obtained by the assessee is taxable receipt u/s 28(iv) and / or u/S. 41(1) - HELD THAT:- Issue covered in favour of the assessee by the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Commissioner Vs. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. [ 2018 (5) TMI 358 - SUPREME COURT] This was a case of this very assessee. Disallowance on account of spe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respect of employees associated with foreign technician for development of new models is capital expenses and not incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business in existence but relates to development of new model? X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ITAT was right in directing to treat the expenses of ₹ 5,02,13,836/- related to setting up of a new foundry as revenue expenditure without appreciating the fact that the expenditure is related to the setting up of a new foundry, activity of which would be different from the activity of the assessee company and hence, cannot be said to be incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business in existe4nce and incidental to it?" 4. In so far as Question No. (a) is concerned, the same has come up for consideration on several occasions before this Court in case of this very assessee for earlier assessment years. Reference to one such order can be made in Income Tax Appeal No. 901 of 2011 dated 15.4.2014 in which Revenue's ground w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ever, on facts on the case noted that the assessee was trying to set up a new foundry but the unit was in the nature of expansion of existing business. That being the position, the expenditure was correctly allowed by the Tribunal.
8. Admission of the Appeal is therefore confined to sole question framed earlier.
9. The Registry is directed to communicate copy of this order to the Tribunal. This would enable the Tribunal to keep papers and the proceedings relating to the present appeal available, to be produced when sought for by the Court.
10. To be heard with Income Tax Appeal (L) No. 1678 of 2012.
11. Mr. Sanjiv M. Shah, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent waives notice of admission. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
