1998 (11) TMI 20

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ce of the Revenue, the following questions have been referred to us : "1. Whether, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the subsidy received by the assessee from the Government should not be reduced from the cost of the assets for the purpose of grant of depreciation and relief under section 80J ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribun .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... a public limited company carrying on business in the manufacture and sale of automobile tyres and tubes. The assessee claims weighted deduction in respect of nine items of expenditure. The assessment officer negatived the claim of the assessee. On appeal, the Commissioner of Income-tax allowed weighted deduction. The Tribunal upheld the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax in respect of weighte .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Following the decision of the Supreme Court, we answer the question in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. With regard to question No, 4, the Supreme Court, in the case of CIT v. Mafatlal Gangabhai and Co. (P.) Ltd. [1996] 219 ITR 644 has held that payments made in cash are not covered by section 40A(5) of the Income-tax Act. The .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X