TMI Blog2008 (4) TMI 270X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Kumar , B.J.Agarwal , D. Awasthi , G. Krishna , R.K. Upadhyay and S.Chopra Respondent's Counsel - , R.R. Agarwal and Suyash Agarwal JUDGMENT We have heard Sri A.N. Mahajan for the appellant department and Sri R.R. Agrawal for the respondent. So far as the first-two questions sought to be raised in this appeal are concerned, although the total cost of all the machinery parts was Rs. 2,35,710/- in the relevant year, but each part individually cost less than Rs. 5000/- and, therefore, allowing of 100% depreciation on each individual part instead of the depreciation of only 25% was justified. The Tribunal has not committed any error on the said question. The next question sought to be raised before us with regard to Tribunal de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourt in the case of C.I.T. Versus Tamil Nadu Dairy Development Corporation, 216 ITR 535 (Mad.). In the case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. (1997) 227 ITR 172 (SC), it has been held that interest earned on surplus funds kept in short term deposits is chargeable under section 56 of the Act. The Apex Court has held as follows:- "The basic proposition that has to be borne in mind in this case is that it is possible for a company to have six different sources of income, each one of which will be chargeable to income tax. Profits and gains of business or profession is only one of heads under which the company's income is liable to be assessed to tax. If a company has not commenced business there cannot be any que ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y being carried out and capital was borrowed from the bank, for expansion. The business income of the assessee was already existing. We, therefore, agree with the decision of the Tribunal on the above point. The last question raised in this appeal by the department is whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the expenses incurred for raising public issue is revenue expenditure in nature. It was argued that this issue stands concluded against the department and in favour of the assessee by the law declared by the Supreme Court. On that basis, we had dictated this order deciding this point also in favour of the assessee. However, before signing the order, we found that in the case of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
