TMI Blog2003 (9) TMI 798X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the facts, and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the unpaid amount of bottling fee has, on furnishing of the bank guarantee, to be treated as actual payment and accordingly, allowing the deduction in respect of the same under section 43B of the Act, even though the sum has not been actually paid before the due date of filing the return under section 139(1) of the Act. 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in allowing depreciation on research and development assets which related to the closed business of fast food division/unit of the assessee-company and as such not used during the previous year? 3. The question No. 1 dwells on the claim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te. Alternatively, it was also urged that since the assessee was required to furnish bank guarantee, in a pending litigation wherein the validity of liability was under challenge, the bank guarantee must be deemed to be actual payment so as to satisfy the condition of section 43B. 6. But the Tribunal has decided the issue in favour of assessee on the latter contention and the first contention of the assessee has not been answered notwithstanding it was raised before the Tribunal. Under such circumstances, the assessee urged before us that even if the question No. 1 is decided against him, he is entitled to relief on second contention raised by him. 7. The second contention raised by him also raises substantial question of law which go ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecided that looking to the nature of charges and provision of levy of taxation scheme under Article 265 after considering number of decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court bottling fee is not a fee in its technical sense as part of taxation, but is a consideration for parting with exclusive privilege of State to deal in potable liquor. Therefore, question No. 3 has been decided in favour of assessee and claim of assessee to deduction was found to be not falling within the ambit of section 43B of the IT Act. It has to be considered as allowable revenue expenditure, if the accounts are maintained on mercantile basis, in the year when such liability has arisen. 11. The question No. 2 refers to allowance of assessee's claim to depreciatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion the claim of depreciation is allowed on block assets. It cannot be denied that assets for R D division of the assessee's business forms part of block assets for accounting period relevant to the assessment year in question. R D division of the assessee-company as such was not closed. Therefore, it also cannot be said that assets in question were not used in the business of assessee. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to deduction on account of depreciation on assets of R D division as part of block assets. 14. The learned counsel for the Revenue, on the other hand urged that section 32(1) provides that before an asset can be construed as part of block assets for computation of depreciation it must be an asset which has been put ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
