9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (2) TMI 34X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the I.T. Act, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee is entitled to deduction of Rs. 8,18,262, Rs. 33,205 and Rs. 31,260 ? " M/s. Foresole Ltd., the non-petitioners in this application (hereinafter referred to as " the assessee "), was engaged for the work of drilling in Jaisalmer area by the Oil and Natural Gas Commission and it conducted the drilling operations from February 17, 1964, till the end of April, 1967. Some disputes arose between the assessee and the Oil Natural Gas Commission which were referred to arbitration. In those arbitration proceedings, the arbitrator gave an award on December 21, 1974, which was made a rule of the court on May 7, 1975. Under the said award, a sum of Rs. 13,61,811 was awarded to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to tax the receipt of discontinued business in an absolutely different way from the receipt of continued business and that there could not be any distinction so far as chargeability of two types of receipts, i.e., receipts of a continuing business and receipts of discontinued business. The Tribunal allowed the deductions as claimed by the assessee on account of the expenses and held that the entire expenditure aggregating to Rs. 8,18,264 was incurred in connection with the arbitration proceedings which culminated in the receipt of Rs. 13,61,811. The Tribunal also held that the amount aggregating to Rs. 33,205 was incurred by the assessee on the transportation to France of the machinery that was being used in the drilling operations and t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ected the said application submitted by the Commissioner of Income-tax on the view that it is too elementary a principle that under the scheme of the I.T. Act only income can be taxed and income can be computed only after deducting the expenditure. Following this principle, the Tribunal took the view that the restricted view taken by the Commissioner (Appeals) that only that expenditure which was incurred in the year of receipt, was allowable, was not correct. The Tribunal, therefore, held that no referable question of law arose from the order dated March 27,1981, passed by the Tribunal. Thereupon, the Commissioner has moved this application under s. 256(2) of the I.T. Act. We have heard Shri R. N. Surolia, the learned counsel for the Rev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d be futile to require the Tribunal to refer such question for the opinion of this court. We are inclined to agree with the aforesaid submission of Shri Aneja. In our opinion, the answer to the question as set out in para. 4 of the application is self-evident and it will be futile to require the Tribunal to refer the said question for the opinion of this court. In so far as the income-tax law is concerned, the position is well-settled that only income can be taxed and income has to be computed only after deducting the expenditure incurred in deriving that income. The expenditure that has been claimed by the assessee and which has been allowed by the Tribunal was the expenditure that was incurred by the assessee for the recovery of the amo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
