Case Laws |
Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1989 1989 (7) This
|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 261 to 263 of 263 Records
-
1989 (7) TMI 4
Closely Held Company, Loss ... ... ... ... ..... ng regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the view that, in this case, replacement of a part of the truck being the petrol engine by a diesel engine, cannot be considered as bringing into existence any new asset or any new advantage of enduring benefit. It may be that, by such replacement, some advantage may be derived by the assessee as the operating cost may be reduced but, without such engine, a truck cannot be run. It pertains to running of the truck and consequently earning of profit by the assessee in its business. In our view, where a replacement is made of a physically, commercially and functionally inseparable part of an entire asset, the expense incurred in relation to such transaction must be treated as an admissible revenue expenditure. For the reasons aforesaid, we answer the only question which has been referred to us in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. BHAGABATI PRASAD BANERJEE J.-I agree.
-
1989 (7) TMI 3
Business Expenditure, Disallowance ... ... ... ... ..... e between the concessional rate of interest and the market rate of interest on loans advanced to employees for building houses as a perquisite for the purposes of section 40A(5) of the Act. Repelling the contention of the Department, it was held that, by advancement of loans at a concessional rate of interest, the assessee is not incurring any expenditure which can be disallowed under section 40A(5) of the Act. In our view, the same reasoning would be equally applicable in the present case. When the assessee in the present case is selling the old cars at their written down value, there is no expenditure incurred by the assessee during their relevant year which could be said to have resulted in the provision of any perquisite. Hence, section 40A(5) of the Act cannot have any application. For the reasons aforesaid, we answer the question in this reference in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. BHAGABATI PRASAD BANERJEE J.-I agree.
-
1989 (7) TMI 2
Appeal To CIT(A) ... ... ... ... ..... rectifying the first order. The original order did not merge in the appellate order in respect of that part of the order which was not the subject-matter of appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner or before the Appellate Tribunal. Hence, the mistake, if any, in the original order of assessment could be rectified only in the original order itself and not from the order which had given effect to the appellate order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner or the Appellate Tribunal. In our view, so long as the original order remains unaffected and does not merge with the appellate order, the limitation will run from the date of the original order and not from the date when the Income-tax Officer has given effect to the order of the appellate authority. For the reasons aforesaid, the question in this reference is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. There will be no order as to costs. BHAGABATI PRASAD BANERJEE, J.-I agree.
....
|
|