9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (4) TMI 61X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng four questions have been referred to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench: " 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 9.35 lakhs representing part of the total value of the shares issued by the assessee to the French company was rightly capitalised and apportioned to various assets and consequently de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed capital should not be excluded from the capital computation for purpose of allowing relief under section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?" Question No. 3, in the light of the decision of this court in CIT v. English Indian Clays Ltd. [1983] 149 ITR 112, is answered in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Question No. 4, in the light of the decision of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... capital assets capable of depreciation. This contention, as rightly pointed out by Dr. Joss Joseph appearing for the assessee, is unsustainable in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Scientific Engineering House P. Ltd. v. CIT [1986] 157 ITR 86. In that case, the Supreme Court pointed out that expenditure incurred for purchasing drawings, designs, charts, plans, processing data and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... such technical assistance, it would not have been possible for the assessee to erect the plant. The expenditure incurred for obtaining such expertise was closely and directly related to the erection of the plant and such expenditure was, in our view, rightly considered by the appellate authorities as a capital expenditure whereby a capital asset within meaning of " plant " was acquired by the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reated partly as a result of such expenditure. See Challapalli Sugars Ltd. v. CIT [1975] 98 ITR 167 (SC), CIT v. L. G. Balakrishnan Bros. (P.) Ltd. [1974] 95 ITR 284 (Mad), Ambica Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1964] 54 ITR 167 (Guj) and Habib Hussein v. CIT [1963] 48 ITR 859 (Bom). Question No. 2 is accordingly answered in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. We di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
