1988 (12) TMI 337

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....and Miss Shobha Chhabria JUDGMENT T. D. Sugla, J. The two questions of law referred to this Court at the instance of the department are: "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that house rent allowance paid to the employees docs not amount to perquisite for the purpose of computing the disallowance under section 40....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lasubramanian, the learned counsel for the department pointed out that the expenditure of Rs. 8, 640 involved herein was incurred by the assessee for transferring its plant and machinery from Bhandup to Kandivli. The factory at Bhandup was on lease whereas the factory at Kandivli was a new factory building constructed by the assessee. The expenditure incurred in dismantling and shifting the plant ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... by Dr. Balasubramanian would not apply. It was urged that the Supreme Court decision in CIT v. Associated Cement Co. Ltd. [1988] 172 ITR 257 and the Calcutta High Court decision in CIT v. Karanpura Development Co. Ltd. [1982] 144 ITR 538 were more akin to the facts of this case and, therefore, the Tribunal was right in allowing the expenditure as the revenue expenditure. 4. In our opinion, the....