Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2006 (3) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2006 (3) TMI 92 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT"1. Whether Tribunal is right in law in holding that the expenditure being the cost of goods given to the depositors at the time of accepting deposits received under the DLIP scheme, being deferred revenue expenditure as revenue expenditure? - question is answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue - 2. Whether, Tribunal is right in law in holding that Form No. 6 signed by a person other than the person entitled to sign as required under section 140 as valid?" - the accountant who has signed Form No. 6 was the duly authorised representative of the respondent. Even otherwise, if there is no such authorisation he shall file such an authorization within four weeks. If such an authorisation is filed within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the authority shall act on such authorisation and treat the application filed in Form No. 6 as a valid one and made by a person who is duly authorised in that behalf.
|