9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (9) TMI 71X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce of weighted deduction under s. 35B on expenditure, which is in the nature of purchasing and manufacturing expenses, ordinarily debatable to the trading or manufacturing account and not to the profit and loss account. 3. On the other hand, the assessee's learned counsel. Shri Palkhivala, pointed out that in terms of the agreements negotiated with the foreign buyers, the goods were exported to them not against cash payment but against Bills of Exchange, which had to be stamped under the India Stamp Act, which were duly discounted through the banks. These expenses, according to Shri Palkhivala, were, therefore, laid out wholly and exclusively by way of incidental expenses for the execution of contract for the export of goods outside Indi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in connection with the export of goods to foreign buyers were, therefore, expenses in connection with the sales and these expenses were ordinarily debatable not to the Manufacturing or Trading Account but to the Profit and Loss Account. These expenses were, also, laid out wholly and exclusively by way of incidental expenses for the execution of contract in connection with the export of goods outside India. Considering all this and following, with respect, the order of the Tribunal in the case of Burlap Bag. Ltd. vs. ITO we uphold the direction of the CIT(A) that the assessee is entitled to weighted deduction under s. 35B on stamp charges amounting to Rs. 1,39,322 on export documents. 5. The next grievance in this appeal is against the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. 1237/Bom/1980), 1977-78 (ITA No. 2610/Bom/82) 1979-80 (ITA No. 7050/Bom/1983) where the Tribunal held that the subsidy received from the Government for setting up an industrial unit in a specified backward area cannot be said to be for meeting directly or indirectly the cost of any asset and consequently this subsidy is not to be apportioned amongst the various assets of the undertaking and deducted from the cost thereof in order to work out the actual cost on which depreciation was admissible. 7. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. At the outset it will be necessary here to point out that in that in the case of Lucknow Producers Co-op. Milk Union Ltd. vs. CIT a grant was given specifically for the purchase of vehicl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt. 9. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. Following, with respect, the ruling of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT vs. Alcock Ashdown Co. Ltd. we uphold the direction of the CIT(A) that the work-in-progress should be included in the computation of capital for the purpose of determining the relief under s. 80J of the IT Act, 1961. 10. The last grievance in this appeal is against the direction of the CIT(A) that the deductions under ss. 80 HH and 80J should be worked out before taking investment allowance into account. Both the learned departmental representative, Shri Makhija, as well as the assessee's learned counsel, Shri Palhivala, submitted that a similar issue cropped up in the case of ITO vs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
