TMI Blog2006 (1) TMI 621X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on. The appeal accordingly fails and is hereby dismissed. - P.D. DINAKARAN AND P.P.S. JANARTHANA RAJA, JJ. For the Appellant : Mrs. Pushya Sitaraman JUDGMENT P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J. - The present appeals are filed under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by the revenue, against the order dated 6-2-2003 in ITA Nos. 3190 and 3191 (Mds.)/92 dated 6-2-2003, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras B Bench raising the following substantial questions of law : 1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that notice under section 147 to reopen the assessment cannot be sent after a notice under section 154 for rectification was issued to the assessee? 2. Whether in the facts and circ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er of the CIT(A) and dismissed the revenue appeal. The existing assets were moved from its original place to another place within the factory and therefore this could not bring into existence any new asset, but only facilitate the existing assets work properly. In our opinion, the assessee by moving its plant within the factory to a location so that the plant could work better resulting in better output, is only providing better facilities for manufacture. In view of the above reasoning, the order of the Appellate Tribunal is confirmed and does not require interference. 3. The facts relating to Question No. 3 are as under:- The assessee claims that the expenditure incurred on levelling of ground for storage of water is a revenue expenditure ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on R D unit was treated as incurred for Sholinganallur unit for the purpose of computing the deduction under sections 80HH and 80-I. On appeal, the CIT(A) upheld the claim of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order, the revenue filed appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has given a specific finding as there being no dispute that separate books of account were maintained and further that the revenue had not been able to show that there was no connection between R D unit and Sholinganallur unit. In view of the above factual finding, the order passed by the Tribunal is confirmed and requires no interference. 5. In respect of Question No. 5, the issue is covered by this Court judgment in the case of CIT v. Wheels India Ltd. [2005] 275 ITR 319 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
