9911796707
TMI Blog1981 (11) TMI 1X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellate Tribunal for our consideration. The first question is as under: " 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the amounts deducted under the provisions of sections 80G, 80L and 80M formed part of the total income for income-tax assessment and that, therefore, the capital should not be reduced by the amounts refer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee, Madras Auto Service Private Limited, was a private company, whose normal accounting period was the financial year. However, during the financial year 1970-71, the assessee company was amalgamated with T. V. Sundaram Iyengar Sons Private Limited. This meant that for the relevant accounting year 1971-72, the assessee did not have a full financial year as the previous year, but only a b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Provided that where the previous year is longer or shorter than period of twelve months, the aforesaid amount of ten per cent ....... shall be increased or decreased proportionately. " In the present case, as already mentioned, for the assessment year 1971-72, the company did not have a full one year as its previous year by reason of the supervening amalgamation on December 24, 1970. As already ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... must be rounded off as a month. In that view, the Tribunal held that the proportion to be applied under the proviso to section 2(8) is not on 8 months and 24 days, but on 9 months. It is the correctness of this view of the Tribunal that is questioned in the second question which we have quoted earlier. In our judgment, the Tribunal's decision is based on a wrong construction of the proviso to se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o order as to costs. Learned standing counsel for the Department orally applied for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against our decision in regard to the first question. Considering that the earlier decision of this court in Addl. CIT v. Bimetal Bearings Ltd. [1977] 110 ITR 131 (Mad) had been the subject of grant of leave by this court to appeal to the Supreme Court, we are disposed to gran ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
