9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (8) TMI 68X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... estions as questions of law by way of this notice of motion. The question are : "(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in ignoring rule 19A and in interpreting the expression 'capital employed in the industrial undertaking' occurring in section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to mean the total value of the assets of the new industrial under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... holding that the gross value of the assets of the industrial undertaking without deducting therefrom any sum by way of liabilities should be taken as the 'capital employed' in the new industrial undertaking ?" It appears that the Tribunal passed its appellate order in Income-tax Appeals Nos. 2338 and 2762 (Bom) of 1980 on September 7, 1982. Thereafter, the Department filed an application for rec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er of the Tribunal on its miscellaneous application. The question, thus, is whether, as a result of the Supreme Court decision in Lohia Machines Ltd. [1985] 152 ITR 308, the appellate order of the Tribunal suffers from a mistake apparent from the record so that it could be rectified under the Act. The question, to say the least, is debatable as the Supreme Court admittedly did not consider the pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
