TMI Blog1973 (4) TMI 34X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t - - - - - Dated:- 24-4-1973 - Judge(s) : G. RAMANUJAM., RAMASWAMY. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by RAMANUJAM J.-The assessee in this case claimed a sum of Rs. 2,000 spent as stock exchange listing fee, as a deduction under the provisions of section 5(e) of the Madras Agricultural Income-tax Act in respect of the assessment for the year 1966-67. The assessing authori ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sment order had not been produced before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, therefore, ultimately proceeded to reject the claim of the assessee for a deduction of the entirety of the sum of Rs. 2,000. Before us, the learned counsel for the assessee contends that the Tribunal is not justified in rejecting the assessee's claim for deduction at least to the extent of Rs. 1,220 which represents the stock e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Madras Agricultural Income-tax Act. This is the view we have taken in T. C. No. 300 of 1967. Dealing with a similar claim of the assessee for deduction in that case, we expressed: " Having regard to the definition of " agricultural income " in article 366(1) of the Constitution and that found in the Income-tax Act, it is not open to the Agricultural Income-tax Officer to reopen the computation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er the Indian Income-tax Act by producing the assessment or appellate orders, the same has to be allowed as a deduction er the Agricultural Income-tax Act also. We find that the see did not produce before the Tribunal the proceedings of the Income-tax Officer or the appellate authority where the said claim for deduction was upheld. But the learned counsel for the assessee states that he will now p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
