2009 (11) TMI 65

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... irmed the finding of the Assessing Officer that the said expenditure was not on account of repair and maintenance, as claimed by the assessee, but the same was on account of installation of machinery - as per the details filed, the expenditure was charged to erection/commission head on account of multitudes supplied Rs. 1 lac and S.S. Polly baffle Type Rs. 15,000/-. It is stated that in reply, the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... -06, raising the following substantial questions of law:- (i) Whether the ITAT was not justified in rejecting the claim of deduction being revenue/business expenditure on account of labour charges ignoring the documentary evidence on record being allowable as per the express provisions of law enunciated u/s 37 (1) of the Act? (ii) Whether the ITAT was not justified in rejecting the claim of de .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... filed, the expenditure was charged to erection/commission head on account of multitudes supplied Rs. 1 lac and S.S. Polly baffle Type Rs. 15,000/-. It is stated that in reply, the assessee could not explain as to how the said expenditure is on account of repair and maintenance and not on account of installation of machinery. In view of the aforesaid finding of fact recorded by the CIT (A) as we .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X