https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=20135 The court upheld the validity of sub-rule (3) of rule 19A in computing capital employed for section 80J, rejecting the Tribunal's stance. It clarified that capital employed should be calculated under rule 19A, not rule 19, to avoid granting double benefits to the assessee. Additionally, it ruled that relief under section 80J is based on the assessment year and should be computed for 12 months for consistency. The case concluded in favor of the Revenue on the first issue and in favor of the assessee on the second issue, with no costs awarded. en-us Wed, 21 Jul 1993 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 12 Nov 2009 10:23:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=20135 The court upheld the validity of sub-rule (3) of rule 19A in computing capital employed for section 80J, rejecting the Tribunal's stance. It clarified that capital employed should be calculated under rule 19A, not rule 19, to avoid granting double benefits to the assessee. Additionally, it ruled that relief under section 80J is based on the assessment year and should be computed for 12 months for consistency. The case concluded in favor of the Revenue on the first issue and in favor of the assessee on the second issue, with no costs awarded. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 21 Jul 1993 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=20135