2000 (12) TMI 42

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... order dated April 19, 1982, in T. C. P. No. 288 of 1981 this court directed the Tribunal to refer the following questions : "(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the Income-tax Officer was not correct in restricting the relief under section 80J on time basis when the new unit had worked only for 8 months during the pre....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....should not whittle down the plenitude of the exemption or relief granted by Parliament by laying stress on any ambiguity here or there." By the observation so made, this court has allowed such an exemption in favour of the assessee. The ratio of that decision is applicable to this case and the first question is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. With regard to the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ion of Parliament. But when section 80J replaced section 84 and rule 19A was made with a view to giving effect to section 80J a change was deliberately brought about and long-term borrowings from approved sources were brought into computation of the 'capital employed'. This change was, however, short lived and with effect from April 1, 1972, the original position was restored. The Finance Minister....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....al employed' and yet Parliament even if it thought that such exclusion was contrary to its true intent, did not take any steps to rectify the position. Then again, while moving the Finance (No. 2) Bill, 1980, the Finance Minister stated on the floor of the House that the intention of Parliament has always been to exclude borrowed monies in computing the 'capital employed' and, therefore, section 8....