9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (11) TMI 25X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... limited company in respect of the assessment for the year 1971-72. It claimed deduction of Rs. 8,700 from its income which was paid as interest to Kalinga Foundation Trust (hereinafter referred to as "the trust "). There is no dispute that in case the trust is a juristic person, the claim has to be allowed. The case of the Department was that there is no such juristic person and Sri Biju Patnaik, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inding that the decision in appeal was based on pure question of fact. Aggrieved by the said refusal, the Department filed applications under section 256(2) of the Act which were registered as S. J. C. Nos. 211 to 216 of 1971. The assessing officer without considering any fact and circumstance has held in this case that the claim is to be rejected as the matter is pending in the High Court for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aik [1986] 160 ITR 674. The assessee in this case preferred an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner which was heard in September, 1974, by which time this court had rendered its decision in S.J.C. Nos. 211 to 216 of 1971. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner held as follows: " ...Following the decision of the Orissa High Court, I hold that the Income-tax Officer is not justified ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... " An application under section 256(1) of the Act was filed by the Department for making a reference to this court by stating a case but the Tribunal refused to state a case on the ground that the question involved is only a question of fact. In the application under section 256(2), this court was not satisfied with the correctness of the decision of the Appellate Tribunal in view of the pendency ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me erroneous in law. For the reasons indicated above, the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the claim for payment of interest was admissible as a revenue expenditure as it would depend upon the answer to be given by this court in S.J.C. Nos. 211 to 216 of 1971, when the same are heard and disposed of after the statement of the case is received as directed by the Supreme Court. In the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
