1993 (8) TMI 19

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 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 on the business? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nditure 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 that such expenditure is not deductible as revenue expenditure. In the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 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. Question No. 2 is also answered in the negative, that is, in favour of t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X