TMI Blog1997 (8) TMI 16X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... epartment, the Tribunal referred the following two questions for the opinion of this court under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : "(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has rightly held that the expenditure of Rs. 33,800 incurred by the assessee-company in providing extra amenities in the lease-hold premises is allowable as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Committee undertook to bear the expenditure up to Rs. 64,000. If additional facilities were required, the same would have to be provided by the assessee itself at its cost. The total cost of construction worked out to Rs. 97,880. So the assessee claimed the balance amount of Rs. 33,800 as revenue expenditure. The Income-tax Officer considering the same as capital in nature, disallowed the claim. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion referred to us in the affirmative and against the Department. In so far as question No. 2, is concerned, the assessee claimed depreciation under section 32(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Inasmuch as the expenditure incurred by the assessee was held to be revenue expenditure, the question of allowing depreciation would not arise. Therefore, question No. 2 does not arise out of the order of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
