https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=38639 The court held that Rule 19A(3) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 exceeded the rule-making power conferred by section 295 of the Act and cannot be relied upon for computing "capital employed" under section 80J. The court set aside the Commissioner's order and directed a fresh assessment excluding the application of Rule 19A(3). Regarding the interpretation of "capital employed" under section 80J, the court ruled that it encompasses both the company's own and borrowed funds used as capital. The Commissioner was directed to grant a rebate of 6% on the entire capital employed, irrespective of the source of funds. en-us Tue, 05 Jul 1977 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 07 Apr 2010 17:57:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=38639 The court held that Rule 19A(3) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 exceeded the rule-making power conferred by section 295 of the Act and cannot be relied upon for computing "capital employed" under section 80J. The court set aside the Commissioner's order and directed a fresh assessment excluding the application of Rule 19A(3). Regarding the interpretation of "capital employed" under section 80J, the court ruled that it encompasses both the company's own and borrowed funds used as capital. The Commissioner was directed to grant a rebate of 6% on the entire capital employed, irrespective of the source of funds. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 05 Jul 1977 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=38639