Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the assessee was entitled to investment allowance under Section 32A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. (ii) Whether guarantee commission paid on the purchase of capital asset was allowable as revenue expenditure and whether a referable question of law arose on that issue.
Issue (i): Whether the assessee was entitled to investment allowance under Section 32A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Analysis: The allowance was held to be unavailable in view of the governing Supreme Court decision, which excluded construction activity of the kind involved from the scope of Section 32A.
Conclusion: The answer was in the negative and in favour of the Revenue.
Issue (ii): Whether guarantee commission paid on the purchase of capital asset was allowable as revenue expenditure and whether a referable question of law arose on that issue.
Analysis: The Tribunal had followed an earlier decision of the Court allowing deduction of guarantee commission as revenue expenditure. On that basis, it was held that no referable question of law arose from the Tribunal's order.
Conclusion: The answer was in the affirmative and against the Revenue.
Final Conclusion: The reference was answered partly in favour of the Revenue, with the investment allowance issue decided against the assessee and the guarantee commission issue not giving rise to a referable question of law against the assessee.