9911796707
TMI Blog1981 (1) TMI 118X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... perations had started in 1964 itself while the factory commenced production in the year 1973. The ld. CIT (A) agreed with the ITO. He Further held that the expenditure not having been incurred upto 31st March, 1970 relief under s. 35D was not available to assessee. Dr. Vaish ld. Counsel for the assessee, stated that as the payment was made after 31st March, 1970 the assessee's claim should not have been rejected. Sec. 35D permits amortization of certain preliminary expenses. It is clearly stated that the expenditure should be incurred after 31st March, 1970 to qualify for amortization. We find that the company was incorporated on 21st Aug., 1969 and commenced business on 31st Oct., 1969. Although the relevant expenditure was incurred righ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g etc. specified in the latter part of the sub-section. The ld. Deptl. Rep on the other hand urged that there was no ambiguity in the section The section clearly restricted the expenditure in connection with the issue of shares etc. to those items specified in the latter part of the sub-section. Dr Vaish placed before us an order of the Tribunal in ITA Nos. 389 390 (Indore) 78-79 where the Bench after going into the terminology of the section decided the issue in favour of the assessee. following this decision we hold that the assessee is entitled to relief under s. 35D in respect of fees paid to the Solicitors and Managers. This part of the order of ld. CIT (A) is set aside. 3. The next ground is about the ITO's refusal to allowed the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the Board. It is for the assessee to approach the Board in this behalf. We therefore, decline to entertain this ground. 5. The next ground is about the exclusion of Rs. 5,17,568 being project and pre-operative expenses for the purpose of relief under s. 80-J. The claim of the assessee was rejected by the ITO and his finding was upheld by the ld. CIT (A) on the ground that these were not fixed assets and also had not been allocated to the fixed assets till 1st July, 1972. He also held that these were current assets not entitled to be included in the computation of capital for the purpose of relief under s. 80-J. The learned Counsel for the assessee argued that the case was covered in his favour by the decision of the Himachal Prades ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
