1984 (1) TMI 30

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... te Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, has referred the following question of law under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, for the opinion of this court: " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the sum of Rs. 10,733 be allowed as a deduction under section 57(iii) of the I.T. Act, 1961 ? " During the previous year releva .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... is not in dispute that the assessee withdrew the amount from the fixed deposit before maturity for the purpose of purchase of shares. The assessee claimed a sum of Rs. 10,733 paid back by the assessee to the bank as an allowable deduction in the assessment. It is also not in dispute that the amount withdrawn was invested in the purchase of shares. The assessee had to repay a sum of Rs. 10,733, a p .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... refore, no reason why he should not be given the benefit of s. 57(iii) of the Act. The Tribunal has correctly concluded in the matter. Mr. H. Raghavendra Rao, learned counsel for the Revenue, however, relied upon the decision of this court in H. H. Maharajakumari Meenakshideviavaru v. CIT (I.T.R.C. No. 183 of 1981, disposed of on November 17, 1983 [1984] 150 ITR 247 (Kar) ). That case, in our opi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X