9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 1387X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in law, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the share issue expenses incurred or raising capital for purchase of plant and machinery should be capitalized and depreciation be allowed on the same ? (2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the entire expenditure incurred on purchase of consumables like diesel, oil and coal is to be allowed as business expenditure even if the entire purchases are not actually consumed during the relevant previous year ? (3) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the interest on DPEA liability is to be allowed as expenditure on year to year basis wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the payments made to Glaxo Sports Club do not fall within the purview of Section 40A(9) of the Income Tax Act ? (8) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in directing the Assessing Officer that entire Head Office Administrative Expenses and interest cost be not allocated to the Nasik Units for computing the quantum of deduction under Section 80I/80IA for the Nasik Units? (9) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in directing the Assessing Officer to consider the disallowances made by him as part of profit of eligible unit on proportionate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed. 5. Re. question no. (3) : Mr. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the Revenue very fairly states that question arising herein was an issue which arose for the Assessment Year 199697 before the Tribunal and decided against the Revenue. Being aggrieved, the Revenue had filed an appeal from the order of the Tribunal for A.Y. 199697 on an identical question being Income Tax Appeal No. 1375 of 2012 and this Court by order dated 7th March, 2014 dismissed the Revenue's appeal. No distinguishing features are shown to exist in the subject assessment year to that existing in A.Y. 199697. In the above view, question (3) as formulated does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus, not entertained. 6. Re. Question (4) : Mr. Sures ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
