2005 (1) TMI 699

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Revenue submits that, through oversight, the applicant-Revenue has not filed paper book, as required by rules of this Court, but prays for dispensing with filing of the paper book in light of the fact that the two questions referred for the opinion of this Court stand concluded by decisions of this Court. Accordingly, it is directed that filing of paper book be dispensed with. 2. The Tribunal, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... aimed certain expenses incurred on running of motor cars of the company. The AO disallowed a sum of ₹ 20,000 by way of lump sum disallowance holding that, as in past, the said sum must have been incurred for non-business and personal expenses. The CIT(A) relied on Tribunal's decision for asst. yr. 1981-82 in assessee's own case and deleted the disallowance of ₹ 20,000 made out .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... chinery since it was not connected with the manufacturing activity of the assessee. The CIT(A), relying on the decision of Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. I.B.M. World Trade Corporation (1981) 130 ITR 739(Bom), held that the assessee was entitled to investment allowance. The Tribunal confirmed the finding of CIT(A) after referring various judgments in its impugned order. 6. Both Mr. D.D. V .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X