9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (10) TMI 19X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... come-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bombay Bench "B", under section 256(1) of the Incometax Act, 1961. The reference was made at the instance of the Revenue and the assessee had not filed a reference application. This fact is important when we consider question No. (3) referred to us. The four questions referred to us are as under : "(1) Whether depreciation can be granted on the cost of construction o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,497 2. Value of unallocated capital expenditure Rs. 9,225." Of these four questions, questions Nos. (1), (2) and (4) arise from the appellate order wherein the decision was against the Revenue and it was the Revenue which had sought reference in respect of these three questions. However, as far as the computation of capital for the purpose of relief/deduction under section 84/80J for the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3) is concerned, Shri Jetley has submitted that it was not permissible to include this question in the reference application at the instance of the Revenue. In this connection, he drew our attention to the observations of the Supreme Court in CIT v. V. Damodaran [1980] 121 ITR 572. The observations are specific and unequivocal. It was not open to the assessee to seek a reference of a question of l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , therefore, we answer question No. (1) in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. In view of this answer, we are not required to answer question No. (2). This brings us to a consideration of question No. (4). Section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and rule 19A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, came to be directly considered by a Division Bench of this High Court in CIT v. Advani Oerlikon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce of the assessee on its application for reference, the assessee might have been entitled to succeed even in respect of the point decided against it by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and covered by question No. (3). However, we are precluded by the observations of the Supreme Court and are, therefore, constrained from giving an answer to question No. (3). The parties to bear their own costs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
