2003 (7) TMI 53

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... has referred the following question for the opinion of this court: "In the interest of the circumstances of the case, was the Tribunal right in treating the increase in the production capacity from 6 lakhs head lamps per annum to 12 lakhs head lamps per annum as expansion and not extension as envisaged in section 250 (sic) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and consequently holding that the assessee....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....taken by the Assessing Officer holding that the amount of public issue has been incurred on "expansion" of business and not on "extension" of business. Therefore, the assessee is not entitled even for the benefit under section 350 of the Act. Heard learned counsel for the parties. There is no dispute that the assessee has incurred Rs. 6,30,177 on the public issue to raise the capital for extend....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n given of the amount of Rs. 6,30,177, therefore, the expenditure incurred only on the items referred to in sub-clause (iv) is eligible for the benefit of section 350(2)(c) of the Act. Therefore, the Tribunal be directed to get the break-up of the expenditure from the assessee as the benefit of sub-clause (iv) of clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 350 can be allowed only on those items refer....