Just a moment...

Report
ReportReport
Welcome to TaxTMI

We're migrating from taxmanagementindia.com to taxtmi.com and wish to make this transition convenient for you. We welcome your feedback and suggestions. Please report any errors you encounter so we can address them promptly.

Bars
Logo TaxTMI
>
×

By creating an account you can:

Report an Error
Type of Error :
Please tell us about the error :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home /

1997 (1) TMI 556

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ions for the opinion of this Court under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961. ' 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the expenses incurred in the shifting of the assessee's factory from Madras to Coonoor was an allowable deduction? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum claimed as provision for monetary value of the unavailed leave of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Madras was still kept in readiness for the company's officers and the shifting of factory alone to Coonoor, did not give rise to any enduring benefit. The ITO was of the view that since the entire manufacturing unit had been shifted, the retention of the premises at Madras, did not indicate any intention to continue the manufacturing process there. He held that the expenditure incurred for the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....diture relating to the shifting of the employees as revenue expenditure. Similar view was also taken in CIT vs . Bimetal Bearings Ltd. : [1995]215ITR675(Mad) In as much as the order passed by the Tribunal is in accordance with the above said decisions of this Court, we answer question No. 1 in the affirmative and against the Department. 5. In so far as question No. 3 is concerned, a sum of &#8377....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... was paid out of business expenditure and was an admissible deduction. On further appeal by the Revenue, the Tribunal followed its own decision in ITA No. 828/Mad/77 dt. 28th Sept., 1978 confirmed the order of the AAC. A similar question came up for consideration in T.C. No. 360 of 1982 wherein by judgment dt. 7th Oct., 1996, this Court held that when the expenditure incurred as bonus in settlemen....