9911796707
TMI Blog1965 (3) TMI 17X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refore left open to be decided in a case where it will matter In the present case the evidence on behalf of the appellant shows that no income-tax was in fact levied on the appellant under section 23A of the Income-tax Act. In these circumstances the tribunal was right in disallowing any claim for income-tax under section 23A of the Income-tax Act. The tribunal was right in holding the appellant to its contention that it required rupees one lakh per year as rehabilitation for the four years 1957-60. It is not disputed that if rehabilitation is only allowed at rupees one lakh, the order of the tribunal granting 10 per centum of the basic earnings for the whole year as bonus cannot be assailed. Appeal dismissed. - - - - - Dated:- 23- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 84,000 as further income-tax under section 23A of the Indian Income-tax Act, and (iii) the tribunal was wrong in allowing rehabilitation at rupees one lakh only and that a much larger sum was properly allowable as rehabilitation. We shall deal with these points one by one. Re (i) : So far as remuneration of the managing director is concerned the contention on behalf of the appellant is that, according to the written agreement between the appellant and the managing director, he is entitled to a salary of Rs. 3,500 per month and the tribunal was clearly wrong in not allowing this salary based on an agreement binding on the appellant. Reliance in this connection is placed on the decision of this court in Crompton Parkinson (Works) Private L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection 23A of the Income-tax Act. Re (iii) : The last question relates to rehabilitation. In this connection the appellant examined an expert, namely, Pathanky, and, according to his evidence, the rehabilitation amount came to be Rs. 8,28,163 per year. His statement was that rehabilitation of the machinery would require just over rupees thirty-six lakhs and according to the remaining life of the machinery he was of opinion that this rehabilitation had to be undertaken within a period of 4 1/2 years. That is how he arrived at a sum of over rupees eight lakhs as rehabilitation for the year in dispute. The tribunal has stated that it has found nothing in the evidence of the expert to discredit his testimony. Even so, it was of opinion that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... allowed only rupees one lakh as rehabilitation for the year in dispute. We cannot say that in the circumstances of this case, the tribunal was wrong. In this case also the appellant had in the alternative asked for rupees one lakh as rehabilitation. On the whole we think that the tribunal was right in holding the appellant to its contention that it required rupees one lakh per year as rehabilitation for the four years 1957-60. We also make it clear that, in 1961 it will be open to the appellant to re-agitate the matter on production of proper evidence in case the matter comes up in reference again and it is able to show that it has in the meantime done something substantial towards rehabilitation during these four years. It is not disputed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
