1992 (5) TMI 194

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....red in accordance with the collaboration agreement for technical know-how was allowable as revenue expenditure ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that deduction was allowable for the payment of ₹ 1 lakh by the assessee to the association of Indian Engg. Industries as business expenditure ?" 2. When the above questions were not referred, the present application under section 256(2) was filed. The last date for filing of the application expired on 15-10-1991. As the Court was closed during Dussehra holidays, the application was not filed on that date. It is only on Monday. 21-10-1991, that the application was filed. It was thereupon brought to the notice o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s of Limitation Act section 5 was not applicable to every application filed under the said Act. Furthermore, section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, inter alia, made the provisions of section 3 of the Limitation Act applicable to special or local law. It further provided that the provisions contained in section 4, sections 9 to 18 and section 22 shall also apply only insofar as, and to the extent to which they are not expressly excluded by such special or local law. Section 29, therefore, did not make the provisions of section 5 of the Limitation Act applicable to every special or local law. 6. Under the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963, with which we are concerned, the position is different. Firstly, section 2(b) defines an application....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lication for condonation of delay, Mr. Bishamber Lal states that he does not wish to oppose the application. We, therefore, allow the application and condone the delay. 9. Coming to the merits of the petition under section 256(2), a question similar to question No. 1 has been directed to be referred by this Court earlier. 10. As regards question No. 2, we find that because of the ratio of the decision of this Court in CIT v. Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd. IT Case No. 267 of [1978], the reference of the said question is not called for. In that case contribution was made by the assessee to the Rajasthan Chamber of Commerce towards construction of a building. Following the ratio of the decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of Lak....