TMI Blog1997 (7) TMI 82X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Tribunal was right in holding that the business of construction carried on by the assessee is an industrial undertaking? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the assessee's business activity is also business of constructing of 'thing' to be entitled to investment allowance under section 32A(2)(b)(iii)? 4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in holding that the dumpers used by the assessee in the execution of civil engineering contract work were not 'road transport vehicles' so as to fall within the proviso (b) to section 32A(1) and granting investment allowance? ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated at the rate of five per cent. of contract value. By another agreement dated June 3, 1980, Protocol No. III, which is stated to be in supersession of the earlier Protocol, it was provided that the agreement for payment of professional fees for rendering services as leader should be treated as cancelled as if it never existed and before making up the final accounts of profit or loss of the transaction, each of the partners would be entitled to two per cent. of the total contract value payable by the purchasers for the project since all the partners were agreed to be actively engaged in the execution of the project, and such fees should be debited to the profit and loss account as an expenditure and the resultant profit or loss should be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order of the Tribunal. It is clear from the order of the Tribunal that there is no dispute about the fact that the amount of Rs. 2,81,731 was receivable by the assessee as service charges under the agreement dated January 6, 1977, with the Builders International (India) Ltd. The fact that the agreement was superseded or modified by the agreement dated June 3, 1980, subsequent to the accrual of the income, is also not in dispute. Nor is it the case of the assessee that the amount in question was not receivable. That being so, the amount which was receivable in the previous year as service charges is the income of the assessee for that year. The fact that the amount receivable by the assessee has not been allowed as a deduction in the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
