TMI Blog1993 (2) TMI 94X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder 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 for opinion: " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the sum of Rs. 2,35,000 being the tax liabilities of the transferor-firm discharged by the assessee, was deductibl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appellate Assistant Commissioner. On further appeal, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal allowed the deduction claimed by the assessee on the ground that the claim was not hit by section 40(a)(ii) of the Act and hence this reference at the instance of the Revenue. We have carefully perused the facts of the case. There is no dispute about the fact that the amount paid by the assessee in discharge ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he categories specified therein, despite the expenditure being a revenue expenditure within the meaning of section 37 of the Act, no deduction shall be allowed. But, where the expenditure itself is capital expenditure and not revenue expenditure, such expenditure would not be allowable as a deduction under section 37 of the Act. Hence, the question of applicability or non-applicability of section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessee itself in a later decision which is reported in Dashmesh Transport Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1980] 125 ITR 681. In this case also a claim was made for deduction of a sum of Rs. 2,77,364 paid by the assessee on account of the income-tax liability of a company whose business assets and liabilities it had purchased. The court held that the assets and liabilities of the transferor-company form ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
