9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (3) TMI 696X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tted on the following reframed 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 foregoi ..... 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 year 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 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 assessment years as also in not fol ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aining 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 gains under Section 45 claimed by appellant ? (xv) Whet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
