2008 (1) TMI 938

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... parties say that this matter has wrongly been shown as part-heard. In fact ITR No.285/1987 was heard in part. In view of this, we now take up ITR No.286/1987 for consideration. The first question that has been referred to us at the instance of the Revenue reads as follows:- 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is correct in law and ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d counsel for the parties say that this issue has to be argued and decided.   The third question read as follows:-   3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that the excise duty liability of Rs. 4,63,511/- was allowable as a deduction in computing the Assessee's income? Learned counsel for the par....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e fifth question reads as under:- 5. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal had erred in holding that the Assessee is entitled to weighted deduction u/s. 35B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on travelling expenses on foreign tour in connection with Kenya Project? Learned counsel for the parties say that this question has to be argued and decided.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eads as follows: 7. Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law and on facts in directing the Income Tax Officer to allow depreciation on SSF and Tyrecord units @ 15% as against 10% allowed by the Income Tax Officer?   We find that the amount involved in this question is negligible and under these circumstances, we return the reference unanswered in so far as this quest....