1989 (9) TMI 42

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tax, the Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law for the decision of this court "Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the tribunal was right in law in holding that the sum of Rs. 12,112 being the excess amount paid due to the fluctuation in the rate of exchange was not allow able as a revenue expenditure in computing the loss of the applicants for the assessm .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... duction in computing the income. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the claim. He stated that the claim related to purchase of capital items and so was not allowable. The said order was confirmed in appeal by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The Tribunal, following its earlier decision in the assessee's own case, held that the extra expenditure which the assessee had to incur is a capital .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... matter has been discussed at length by reference to the earlier decisions in Periyar Chemicals Ltd.'s case [1986] 162 ITR 163 (Ker), in CIT v. Tata Locomotive and Engineering Co. Ltd. [1966] 60 ITR 405 (SC) and later decisions in Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1979] 116 ITR 1 (SC) and in Union Carbide India Ltd. v. CIT [1981] 130 ITR 351 (Cal). These decisions establish that the extra expenses .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X