https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=26158 The case involved a dispute over the interpretation of provisions of section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961, regarding the inclusion of borrowed capital in computing capital employed for tax relief. The High Court clarified the validity of rule 19A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, affirming its consistency with Parliament's intention and ruling in favor of excluding borrowed capital for section 80J relief. The Supreme Court settled the dispute by approving the High Court's decision, emphasizing adherence to this ruling and confirming the exclusion of borrowed capital in computing "capital employed" for section 80J relief. The Tribunal's justification in confirming the Commissioner's order and quashing the Income-tax Officer's rectification under section 154 for the assessment year was questioned and directed for further consideration. en-us Tue, 26 Feb 1985 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 03 Feb 2010 12:22:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=26158 The case involved a dispute over the interpretation of provisions of section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961, regarding the inclusion of borrowed capital in computing capital employed for tax relief. The High Court clarified the validity of rule 19A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, affirming its consistency with Parliament's intention and ruling in favor of excluding borrowed capital for section 80J relief. The Supreme Court settled the dispute by approving the High Court's decision, emphasizing adherence to this ruling and confirming the exclusion of borrowed capital in computing "capital employed" for section 80J relief. The Tribunal's justification in confirming the Commissioner's order and quashing the Income-tax Officer's rectification under section 154 for the assessment year was questioned and directed for further consideration. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 26 Feb 1985 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=26158