9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (10) TMI 31X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ial leave is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in I.T.A. 20 of 1999 dated March 14, 2002. By its aforesaid judgment and order dated March 11, 2002 read with revised order dated March 14, 2002, impugned herein, out of the two questions referred to the High Court for its opinion, it answered the first question in favour of the Revenue, and directed that the second question, together with the question as to whether the claim of deduction of the amount could be claimed under section 37 of the Act, be considered by the Tribunal. It accordingly, remitted the matter to the Tribunal for fresh disposal of the matter on the aforesaid two questions. The facts of the case may be briefly noticed: The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, could the expenditure incurred on replacing the power panel be considered as current repairs entitled to deduction under section 31 of the Income-tax Act? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case is not the expenditure of Rs. 11,11,600 incurred on replacement of electric control panel a capital expenditure?" The High Court, by its order of March 11, 2002 set aside the finding of the appellate authority and the Tribunal to the effect that the expenditure was incurred on "current repairs". In view of this finding, the High Court answered the aforesaid question in favour of the Revenue. However, the matter was again brought up before the High Court under the headin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd that though the High Court, in its earlier order observed that the questions must be answered in favour of the Revenue, there is no discussion in the order of the High Court on the second question framed for its opinion. The High Court, perhaps, proceeded on the basis that in view of its answer to the first question, the second question must be answered in the affirmative, i.e. in favour of the Revenue. Having perused section 37 of the Act, we are of the view that the High Court has not committed any illegality in remitting the matter to the Tribunal. Section 37 of the Act deals with any expenditure not being an expenditure of the nature described under sections 30 to 36 of the Act, and not being in the nature of capital expenditure or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
