TMI Blog1996 (2) TMI 564X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Case No. 443 of 1986, filed by the applicant-assessee under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 (for short `the Act'), on 9th March, 1989, the Tribunal has stated the case and referred the undernoted question of law for our opinion : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in not entertaining the ground of appeal regarding the deductibility of cap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aise any ground of objection relating to deduction of ₹ 3,72,850 from the written down value of the building and plant and machinery for the purpose of computation of allowable depreciation. It also did not raise any objection as to the assessment of sales-tax subsidy of ₹ 1,80,945. The appeal was dismissed. The assessee then filed second appeal before the Tribunal and raised the groun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... non-applicant/Revenue. He was heard. 4. Normally, we would have declined to answer the question as the assessee did not choose to appear and press the reference but as this Court took the view that the amount of capital subsidy received by the assessee is not deductible in CIT vs. Bhandari Capacitors Pvt. Ltd. (1987) 65 CTR (MP) 114: (1987) 168 ITR 647(MP) : TC 29R.395 and this view is affirme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is that the question was not raised before the first appellate authority but it is equally true that the aforesaid question was one of law and had material bearing on the order of assessment. 7. In view of the aforesaid position, we are satisfied that the Tribunal was not justified in not entertaining the ground of appeal regarding the deductibility of the capital subsidy in computing the actua ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
