TMI Blog2005 (7) TMI 51X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich was rightly disallowed by the Assessing Officer for the year under consideration, i.e., the assessment year 1985-86 in the circumstances of the case?" - - - - - Dated:- 27-7-2005 - Judge(s): R. K. AGRAWAL., RAJES KUMAR. JUDGMENT The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, has referred the following three questions of law under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), for the opinion of this court: "1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in allowing the claim of deduction of Rs. 13,78,569 and Rs. 3,98,412 being expenditure incurred on scientific research and development? 2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 88, allowed the assessee's appeal following the decision of the Tribunal in the assessee's case itself for the assessment year 1982-83. On appeal by the Department, the Tribunal following their judgment for the assessment year 1982-83 as mentioned above, have confirmed the view of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The next issue involved is deduction of Rs. 25,43,025 claimed under the head interest on Government loans disallowed by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the amount was debited to the profit and loss account but it was not provided for in the accounts. On appeal by the assessee, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) vide his order dated October 17, 1988, had directed the Assessing Officer to allow the claim on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xpenditure on scientific research and development is relating to business and is therefore allowable. Respectfully following the aforesaid decision, we answer the first question in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. So far as the second question is concerned, we find that the assessee had debited the amount of interest on Government loans in its profit and loss account. It was disallowed only on the ground that it was not provided for in the accounts. In the case of Kedarnath Jute Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 363, it has been held by the apex court that whether the assessee is entitled to a particular deduction or not will depend on the provision of law relating thereto not on what vie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
