TMI Blog1989 (5) TMI 28X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rence here pertains to the following questions : "(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the depreciation under section 32 ( 1 ) (ii) of the Income-tax Act was not admissible in respect of the building of Ram Mandir ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee and against the Revenue keeping in view the earlier judgment of this court in Atlas Cycle Industries Ltd. v. CIT [1982] 134 ITR 458, pertaining to the same assessee for the earlier years. As regards question No. (3), which concerns expenditure incurred on entertainment, the matter is covered by the decision of our Full Bench in CIT v, Khem Chand Bahadur Chand [1981] 131 ITR 336, where it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ngirji [1973] 91 ITR 544, 549, where it was observed, "In our opinion, it makes no difference whether the proceedings are civil or criminal, AU that the court has to see is whether the legal expenses were incurred by the assessee in his character as a trader, in other words, whether the transaction in respect of which proceedings are taken arose out of and was incidental to the assessee's business ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in favour of the assessee being Rohtas Industries Ltd. v. CIT [1968] 67 ITR 361 (Patna) ; Lakshmiji Sugar Mills Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1975] 98 ITR 568 (Delhi); and CIT v. Ahmedabad Controlled Iron and Steel Regd. Stockholders Association Pvt. Ltd. [1975] 99 ITR 567 (Guj). Mr. Ashok Bhan, Senior Advocate, appearing for the Revenue, on the other hand, sought to rely upon the judgment of the Suprem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ji Raja Narasingirji's case [1973] 91 ITR 544 (SC), but, what is pertinent to note here are the observations of the Supreme Court in the latter case to the effect that the earlier cases where it had been held that the expenditure incurred by the assessee to defend himself against a criminal charge, did not fall under section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, were decisions on their own ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
