TMI Blog1993 (8) TMI 19X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TI J.-The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following two questions at the instance of the Revenue under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : " 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the expenses of Rs. 17,127 incurred by the assessee for the issue of bonus shares can be said to be incurred in the course of business and for the purpose of carrying ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing bonus shares was rejected on the ground that it was not revenue expenditure but capital expenditure. The Tribunal, however, held the said expenditure allowable as it was of the view that it was normal business expenditure, that is, revenue expenditure. This court in Shree Digvijay Cement Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1982] 138 ITR 45 and Ahmedabad Mfg. and Calico P. Ltd. v. CIT [1986] 162 ITR 800, has held ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed in clause (b) were fulfilled. In this case, it is not in dispute that the requisite conditions have not been fulfilled. Therefore, following the Supreme Court judgment, it will have to be held that the Tribunal was wrong in directing the Income-tax Officer to allow that claim. In the result, question No. 1 is answered in the negative, that is, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
