9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (4) TMI 28X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the court was delivered by THANIKKACHALAM J.-- In this tax case petition relating to the assessment year 1983-84 under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the assesses requests this court to direct the Tribunal to refer the following two questions of law said to arise out of the order of the Tribunal : " (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nditure was not incurred in the accounting year and that a portion of the property was utilised for administrative purposes. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) confirmed the order passed by the Income-tax Officer. As against this order, a second appeal was preferred before -the Appellate Tribunal. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s). The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has confirmed the disallowance made by the Income-tax Officer. On further appeal, the Appellate Tribunal agreed with the view taken by the Commissioner of Income-tax. Under section 35(1)(iv), if the assessee acquired capital asset for the purpose of setting up a research laboratory, the assessee is entitled to deduction of the expenditure incurred towa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the land was not allowed. In so far as the land relating to Gujarat is concerned, the assessee claimed a sum of Rs. 42,67,554 as deduction under section 35(1)(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Income-tax Officer pointed out that actually this land was not acquired by the assessee and no research activities were carried therein. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Appellate Trib ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
