TMI Blog2013 (3) TMI 696X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d substantial questions of law :- (i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is justified in holding that ₹ 7,61,33,928/- is capital expenditure ? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal erred in not alternatively directing respondent to grant depreciation on the foregoing capital expendi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tive ground of the appellant that the development expenses ₹ 1,20,21,845/- on new range of compact tractors are deductible under Section 35 of the Act ? (vi) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal erred in holding that octroi subsidy ₹ 17.9 crores received by appelant is revenue receipt notwithstanding that in the preceding assessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... umstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal erred in confirming the disallowance of Employees Stock Option (ESOP) expenses ₹ 3,69,07,378/- ? (x) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in setting aside the ground pertaining to club expenses ₹ 1,17,01,995/- despite the same being allowed by the Tribunal in the preceding asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wance of capital loss ₹ 1,85,21,865/- pertaining to sale of Research and Development (R D) capital assets ? (xiv) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal erred in holding that ₹ 10.5 crores received for non-compete convenant from the appellant's subsidiary is assessable as revenue receipt under Section 28(va) as against capital ga ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
