Binding precedent sustained disallowance of depreciation on amalgamation assets and share issue expenses under section 37.

Depreciation on assets transferred in amalgamation was discussed as having been disallowed on the basis of the Court's earlier decision in the assessee's own case, and that disallowance was sustained. Share issue expenses, including advisory fees, were also examined under section 37 and treated as covered by the Supreme Court decision in Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. v. CIT; the deduction was therefore not allowed and the disallowance was sustained. The note states that no surviving question remained for adjudication and the appeal was dismissed, reflecting the effect of binding precedent on both claimed deductions.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether disallowance of depreciation claimed in respect of assets transferred on amalgamation was justified. (ii) Whether share issue expenses, including advisory fees, were allowable as revenue expenditure under section 37.

Issue (i): Whether disallowance of depreciation claimed in respect of assets transferred on amalgamation was justified.

Analysis: The issue was stated to be covered by the Court's earlier decision in the assessee's own case.

Conclusion: The disallowance was sustained.

Issue (ii): Whether share issue expenses, including advisory fees, were allowable as revenue expenditure under section 37.

Analysis: The issue was treated as covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. v. CIT.

Conclusion: The disallowance was sustained and the claim was not allowed under section 37.

Final Conclusion: No surviving question remained for adjudication, and the appeal was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the claimed deductions are covered against the assessee by binding precedent, the appellate challenge to the disallowance must fail.

---