TMI Blog1993 (2) TMI 83X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erence under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, made at the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law : " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that a sum of Rs. 3,24,179 paid by it to Messrs. Ralph. M. Parsons Co. of Asia was admissible as revenue expenditure ?" Tho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nly question that remains to be answered is the question referred at the instance of the Revenue. The controversy raised in the above question is in regard to the nature of the expenditure amounting to Rs. 3,24,179 incurred by the assessee-company. The question is whether it is a revenue expenditure or it is an expenditure in the nature of capital expenditure. The facts giving rise to this questio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of the said firm, for which the payments were made, ultimately did not materialise. The. Income-tax Officer, therefore, held that the expenditure was of a capital nature and not an allowable deduction. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner perused the report made by the consulting engineers and examined the facts of the case and came to the conclusion that the entire expenditure coul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o. of Asia were availed of by the assessee was for rationalisation of its administration and modernisation of its machinery with a view to derive maximum benefit out of the existing resources. The object seems to be to improve the productive efficiency. It was not in connection with a new plant or a new project or a new product. It was to improve the production of the existing project with a view ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
