TMI Blog2003 (7) TMI 20X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n in respect of power charges and engine-hire charges. However, the assessee is not entitled for depreciation. Question No. 2 we answer in the negative i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. - - - - - Dated:- 8-7-2003 - Judge(s) : Y. R. MEENA., SHASHI KANT SHARMA. JUDGMENT On an application under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has referred the following questions for the opinion of this court: "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the Tribunal was justified in allowing the claim of the assessee of Rs. 54,607 in respect of depreciation, power charges, engine-hire, despite the fact that business remained closed during the relevant accounting year? 2. Whether, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the parties. They have also submitted their written submissions. The facts are not in dispute that the assessee has claimed depreciation to the tune of Rs. 14,259 power charges to the tune of Rs. 10,348 and engine hire charges to the tune of Rs. 30,000. There is no dispute on the facts also that in the preceding year, i.e., the assessment year 1983-84, power charges and engine-hire charges were allowed but depreciation was not allowed. The Tribunal in the year in hand has allowed the depreciation holding that when the machinery is ready for production, the assessee is entitled for depreciation. The Tribunal has also allowed the deduction of medical expenditure of Rs. 1,51,190. Considering the submissions, when the similar expenditure ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amine and disallow the expenses which are not for the purpose of the business. Some cases are referred by Mr. Jain, learned counsel for the respondent, wherein the expenditure on treatment has been allowed, but that would depend upon the facts of each case. It is true that there is no bar to allow the expenditure on treatment but the pertinent question is whether that expenditure is for the purpose of the business, that depends on the facts of each case. On the case in hand, the Income-tax Officer and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) both found that the expenditure is of "personal nature" and not for the purpose of the business. When the assessee claimed that this particular expenditure is for the purpose of the business, the b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
