TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1995 (4) TMI 28
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e assessment year 1983-84 under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the assesses requests this court to direct the Tribunal to refer the following two questions of law said to arise out of the order of the Tribunal : " (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in rejecting the claim for deduction of Rs. 59,88,893 under section 35(1)(iv) of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ised for administrative purposes. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) confirmed the order passed by the Income-tax Officer. As against this order, a second appeal was preferred before -the Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal also, considering the fact that the assessee has not established that the above....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ome-tax Officer. On further appeal, the Appellate Tribunal agreed with the view taken by the Commissioner of Income-tax. Under section 35(1)(iv), if the assessee acquired capital asset for the purpose of setting up a research laboratory, the assessee is entitled to deduction of the expenditure incurred towards acquiring the capital asset. In the present case, the assessee purchased the lands at S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessee claimed a sum of Rs. 42,67,554 as deduction under section 35(1)(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Income-tax Officer pointed out that actually this land was not acquired by the assessee and no research activities were carried therein. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Appellate Tribunal agreed with the order passed by the Income-tax Officer. It was contended before the Tr....