9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (10) TMI 55X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,10,824? 2. Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the accretion in the contingency account No. II could not be brought to tax as trading receipt in spite of the fact that the actual sales tax liability in respect of completed transactions had been duly provided for by transfer from the aforesaid amount? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the sale of vehicles under the hire purchase agreement is concluded only when the terms of the agreement are fully complied with by the hirer or option to purchase is exercised? 4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appealed to the Tribunal, which was dismissed. Another issue related to the claim of investment allowance on computer under section 32A of the Act at 25 per cent, on Rs. 4,24,567 being the value of the computer installed in the office premises of the assessee. The Assessing Officer declined to allow the said claim amounting to Rs. 1,06,142 as, according to him, it was an office appliance and did not fall under the provisions of section 32A(b)(ii) of the Act as it was not used for the purpose of manufacture or production of any article or thing and mainly was used for its own office work. Aggrieved, the assessee appealed to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) who allowed the assessee's claim holding that the assessee was entitled to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... questions Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. So far as question No. 4 is concerned, as the sale under the hire-purchase agreement takes place only at the time mentioned in the agreement or at the option of the hirer, if so provided in the agreement, the dealer's margin or profit under the hire purchase agreement did not accrue to the assessee on the execution of the agreement by the hirer. Thus, question No. 4 is to be answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. So far as question No. 5 is concerned, we find that this court in Income-tax Reference No. 17 of 1991, CIT v. Radla Machinery Export [2006] 283 ITR 185 (All), connected with Income-tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
