2000 (6) TMI 6

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eal for the assessment year 1985-86. Question No. 1 is as follows: "(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the entire amount of initial contribution to superannuation fund should be allowed instead of 1/5th of 80 per cent. thereof?" Learned counsel for the Department concedes that the above question has been answered in f....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on 35D of the Income-tax Act?" Mr. Desai, learned senior counsel for the Department, contended that in this case, the judgment of the Supreme Court in India Cements Ltd. v. CIT [1966] 60 ITR 52, has no application after the introduction of section 35D of the Income-tax Act. He contended that the Tribunal erred in coming to the conclusion that section 35D would only apply in respect of the expen....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... extension of the industrial undertaking or with regard to setting lip a new industrial unit then the assessee shall be allowed a deduction at an amount equal to one-tenth of such expenditure for each of the ten successive previous years beginning with the previous year in which the business commences or the previous year in which expansion of the industrial undertaking is completed, etc. In the p....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....llowance paid to employees not owning cars amounting to Rs. 1,66,240 be excluded from the purview of disallowance under section 37(3B) of the Income-tax Act?" In the present case, the conveyance allowance was paid to employees who were owning two wheelers or who were commuting by train or bus. It was not paid to employees owning cars. However, learned counsel for the Department placed reliance ....