9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (4) TMI 80X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of borrowing to the new unit it would not be proper to deny the claim of the assessee establishing when the funds of the head office were sufficient enough to make investments in the new unit is correct in law and sustainable from the material on record? 3. Whether the Tribunal has been right in law in setting aside the decision taken by the CIT (A) and directing the ITO to grant relief to the assessee which is worked out Rs. 5,73,516 being 7.5 per cent on Rs. 76,46,882? 4. Whether, the Tribunal has not in law and on facts in holding that the amount of Rs. 71,124 being the amount of mis-appropriation by an employee of the company was allowable by way of loss in the course of business under s. 28 of the IT Act, 1961? 2. The facts b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Rs. 5,853 was recovered from the concerned employee. The balance amount was written off in the profit and loss account of the company. 3.1. On appeal insofar as the first point is concerned, the CIT (A) directed the ITO to apply the ratio of 5.51/7.92 to the net capital of the pesticides unit represented by funds of the head office utilised by that unit and worked out the eligible capital at Rs. 52,23,438. Inspite of the fact that assessee itself pointed out that if proportion is to be worked out then this would work out to 84 per cent of own funds employed. Otherwise the order of the ITO was confirmed by him. 3.2. Insofar as the allowance of claim on account of misappropriation, the CIT confirmed the view taken by the ITO on sever ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the appeal by the Tribunal and whatever amount was recovered the same had been credited to the account of the employee and only the balance amount was claimed. Tribunal also considered the aspect that accounts of the company are audited by Comptroller and Auditor General of India. It held that loss was allowable under s. 28 of the IT Act itself. 4. At the time of hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee objected to the present reference. 5. In our opinion, no referable question of law arises and, therefore, we decline to draw up the statement of the case. 5.1. Question No. 1 does not arise because eligibility to relief under s. 80J was never the ground before the Tribunal. The appeal was agitated only with regard to the quantif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
