1994 (3) TMI 172

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... High Court in the case of CIT vs. Elys Plastics P. Ltd. (1990) 87 CTR (Bom) 80 : (1991) 188 ITR 11 (Bom). Respectfully following the ratio of the aforesaid judgment of the Bombay High Court, we confirm the view taken by the learned CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to allow the depreciation without reducing the subsidy from the cost of the assets. The Revenue fails on this ground. 3. The ground No.3 in the appeal reads as follows: "The CIT(A) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to allow weighted deduction under s. 35B without considering the fact that the same is not allowable in respect of any expenditure incurred after 1st March, 1983." 4. The allowability of weighted deduction under s. 35B has been challenged in respect of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... is held that provision for leave salary is not permissible deduction as it is a contingent liability." 9. The issues involved in these grounds of appeal has been discussed by the learned CIT(A) in para 3 of his impugned order in the following manner: "The next contention is regarding the disallowance of provision for leave salary. The deduction has been allowed in the earlier year by the Hon'ble Tribunal. The addition is deleted." 10. The Tribunal order to which reference has been made by the learned CIT(A) has not been produced before us. It was submitted by the learned Departmental representative that the liability on account of leave encasement by employee is not an ascertained one, but is a contingent one and, therefore, any provisi....