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: Whether the reference on entitlement to relief under section 84 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 required an answer on merits or should be declined as academic.
Analysis: The controversy turned on the scope of the disqualification in section 84(2) and its correspondence with section 15C of the Income-tax Act, 1922. A prior Division Bench decision on the same assessee had held that a building earlier used by another business could fall within the mischief of the provision, but the Tribunal had later found that the value of the leasehold premises used by the assessee was insignificant in relation to its total assets and below the statutory threshold reflected in the Explanation to section 84. In that setting, and because the relevant condition had to be assessed at the time of formation of the undertaking, the question was treated as not requiring a further answer.
Conclusion: The reference was declined as involving a purely academic question, and no answer was given on the merits of the entitlement to relief under section 84.
Final Conclusion: The references were disposed of without pronouncing on the referred tax question, as no useful purpose would be served by an answer.
Ratio Decidendi: A purely academic tax reference need not be answered where the dispute can be resolved by the existing factual findings and the statutory conditions are to be tested at the time of formation of the undertaking.