https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=18891 Deduction for capital expenditure under section 35(1)(iv) was unavailable because the assessee did not prove that the lands were acquired for setting up a research laboratory or research unit. The Madras property lacked independent evidence of research and development use and was partly used for administrative purposes, while the Gujarat land was not shown to have been acquired and used for a research unit. The plea based on deemed possession under section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act did not change the factual position. The Tribunal's findings were based on appreciation of evidence, so no referable question of law arose. en-us Wed, 05 Apr 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 02 Nov 2009 16:12:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=18891 Deduction for capital expenditure under section 35(1)(iv) was unavailable because the assessee did not prove that the lands were acquired for setting up a research laboratory or research unit. The Madras property lacked independent evidence of research and development use and was partly used for administrative purposes, while the Gujarat land was not shown to have been acquired and used for a research unit. The plea based on deemed possession under section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act did not change the factual position. The Tribunal's findings were based on appreciation of evidence, so no referable question of law arose. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 05 Apr 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=18891