1988 (12) TMI 7

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e circumstances of the case, cash allowances paid to the employees could be considered as outside the purview of section 40(a)(v) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years 1969-70 and 1970-71 ? (3) Whether, for the assessment years 1968-69 to 1970-71, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled to depreciation on the cost of roads either as part of factory buildings or building by themselves at 2 1/2% ? (4) Whether, for the assessment years 1967-68 to 1970-71, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled to development rebate in respect of durable machine tools on the footing that they Constituted 'machinery and plant' provided the necessary reserve had been crea .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n these durable tools on the footing that they constituted "plant and machinery". The Income-tax Officer rejected the claim. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner accepted it only in regard to one of the four years involved and the Tribunal accepted it in toto. It was contended that these durable tools cannot be considered to be plant and machinery. As the Tribunal very rightly pointed out, that since the Income-tax Rules, as amended, themselves considered such tools to be plant and machinery, we see no reason to interfere with the Tribunal's conclusion in this regard. It was contended before us, as it had been contended before the Tribunal, that such durable tools were not installed. The word "installed" does not necessarily mean embedded .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ners would have to be lavish. But whether or not the lunches and dinners were lavish is a question of fact which is a matter for the Tribunal to consider. Accordingly, the first question raised by the assessee is answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. The second question raised by the assessee is in regard to the expenditure incurred upon a public issue and Mr. Munim, learned counsel for the assessee, fairly conceded that the question must be answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue, having regard to this court's decision in Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation Ltd. v. CIT [1984] 145 ITR 793. The question is so answered. There shall be no order as to costs.    
Case laws, Decisions, Judgements, Or .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X