2004 (9) TMI 14

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in not having allowed initial depreciation on an amount of Rs. 13,502 being the expenditure on water cooler places, in view of section 32(1)(iv)? 2. Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in having treated the amount of Rs. 1,56,393 earned by it from sale of import entitlements as constituting revenue receipt, liable to tax? 3. Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has correctly interpreted rule 6D(2) while disallowing a sum of Rs. 2,000 out of the travelling expenses?" At the instance of Revenue (marked as question No. 1-A by us): "(1-A) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in allo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t year 1978-79, the Tribunal held that the cycle sheds were covered under the categories of the buildings specified in the above provision. On a specific query from counsel for the Revenue, he has not been able to show that the finding of the Tribunal in the assessment year 1978-79 had been challenged by the Revenue. Even otherwise, we are satisfied that the interpretation placed by the Tribunal in the assessment year 1978-79 is correct. Since the relief has been granted to the assessee on the basis of finding recorded in the assessment year 1978-79, which has become final, we are satisfied that the Tribunal was right in allowing the claim of the assessee for initial depreciation on cycle sheds. In so far as the claim for initial deprecia....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... employees, the same was also applicable to "any other person". The assessee, on the other hand, contended that this rule was not applicable to the professionals. The disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was upheld by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The Tribunal on further appeal upheld the disallowance by observing as under: "We have heard both the parties at length. The nature of the services rendered by the professionals has not been discussed either by the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Be that as it may, rule 6D(2) refers to the words 'any other person'. This has not been defined in the Act. It has, therefore, to be considered in its wider sense. The words 'any other person' cannot be re....