9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (1) TMI 70X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Commissioner of Income-tax had no jurisdiction to revise under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the order of the Income-tax Officer dated July 28, 1978, which had merged into the appellate orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) dated February 28, 1979, and of the Tribunal dated May 1, 1980? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the amount of Rs. 8,26,700 should not be excluded for purposes of capital employed under rule 19A of the Income-tax Rules for purposes of deduction allowable under section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1975-76 ?" While completing the assessment on the respondent/assessee for the previous year ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missioner did not agree with the submissions made by the assessee. He found that the company had purchased some extra land for Rs. 5,89,563 adjacent to the existing land and constructed a building thereon at a cost of Rs. 2,37,137 and that these items were transferred to the building account in the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1976-77 and were also actually used in the industrial undertaking during the said assessment year. The Commissioner felt that the Income-tax Officer had wrongly computed the relief under section 80J of the Act by taking into account the entire assets including the said two new assets as being used for purposes of the industrial undertaking without making any enquiry as to whether the said land and bui ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the business, whether the asset itself is actually used in the business or not, so far as the capital is concerned, it continues to be employed in the business. Following the said decisions, the Tribunal held that the cost of the two new assets in question should not be excluded for computing the capital employed under rule 19A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, for the purposes of deduction allowable under section 80J of the Act. It is against this order that, at the instance of the Revenue, the Tribunal has referred the aforementioned questions. We first take up question No. 2 for the sake of convenience. The short question requiring consideration is whether for the purpose of deduction under section 80J of the Act, the value of the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... through the provisions contained in section 80J of the Act and the judgments relied upon by the assessee. We are in respectful agreement with the consistent view expressed by the various High Courts on the point in these judgments. No reason much less a compelling reason has been brought to our notice by learned counsel for the Revenue to persuade us to depart from the view taken by the other High Courts in the said judgments. In fact, learned counsel for the Revenue admitted that no High Court has expressed a view contrary to the one taken in the aforesaid authorities. In this view of the matter, following the said judgments, we endorse the view taken by the Tribunal that the value of the two assets in question cannot be excluded for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
